Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Accrington) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Tiverton Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Brighton Hove and Worthing Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

East Worcestershire Water Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Captain ELLISTON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent claim by the minister for posts and telegraphs in the parliament of the Irish Free State that the British Government has defaulted in respect of
a sum of £53,608 due for postal services; and for what reasons such payment has been withheld?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The sum in question represents the liabilities of the Irish Free State to this country in respect of telephone capital annuities and the repayment by the Irish Free State of the apportioned share of Post Office pension charges. As payment was not made by the Free State authorities of the sums thus due they have been reserved in the periodical cash adjustments between the United Kingdom Post Office and the Irish Free State Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEEPSTAKES (REFERENDUM, SOUTHERN RHODESIA).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that a postal referendum took place during last month in Southern Rhodesia in which the electors were asked whether they were in favour of sweepstakes under strict legislative control; what was the result of the referendum; and what proportion of the electorate voted?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am aware that a referendum on this subject has been held in Southern Rhodesia. I have no information regarding it other than that contained in Press reports from which it appears that the result of the referendum was a majority of 16,949 to 3,604 in favour of sweepstakes under strict legislative control and that 73 per cent. of the electorate voted.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Cabinet to this referendum and point out that whenever any country has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject it has approved of the proposal by an overwhelming majority?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Would he also draw the attention of the Cabinet to the fact that a parish council in Lancashire or Yorkshire could quite easily vote on the same subject, and vote, by an equally large majority, against such a proposal?

HON. MEMBERS: But they have not done so.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will he also point out that France and Italy are not parish councils?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PREFERENTIAL IMPORTS (SEA TRANSPORT).

Mr. HANNON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the resolution which was adopted by the Chamber of Shipping at its annual meeting, on 1st March, urging that the Government, after consultation with the Dominions, should limit the enjoyment of Imperial preference to goods imported in ships belonging to countries which give fair play to British exports and British shipping; and if any action in this direction is contemplated?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 6th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) and to the hon. Members for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) and Sunderland (Mr. Storey). Mr. HANNON: May we assume that this important subject is continuously engaging the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that he will shortly make some statement as to the policy of the Government in relation to it?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend has recollected what I said on 6th March, I think he will have gathered that this subject is under consideration in consultation with the shipping industry at the present time.

TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Dr. HOWITT: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of total imports into each of the countries with which treaties have been signed which has been derived from the United Kingdom during the last six months or for the latest available period and during the corresponding period prior to the signature of the treaties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows in respect of those countries with which trade agreements have been concluded, the proportions
of the total imports derived from the United Kingdom during the latest six months for which the particulars are available, together with the proportions for the corresponding periods of the previous year.

Country.
Period.
Imports from the United Kingdom as a Percentage of Total Imports.




Per cent.


Finland
Aug., 1933—Jan., 1934
20.9



Aug., 1932—Jan., 1933
18.0


Sweden
July—Dec, 1933
19.1



July—Dec, 1932
(a)


Norway
April-Sept., 1933
21.7



April—Sept., 1932
21.7


Iceland
Information not available.


Denmark
Aug., 1933—Jan., 1934
28.7



Aug., 1932—Jan., 1933
24.9


Germany
July—Dec, 1933
5.7



July—Dec, 1932
5.1


Argentine
July—Dec, 1933
21.5


Republic.
July—Dec, 1932
(a)


(a) Not available in respect of this period, but for the whole years 1933 and 1932 the corresponding percentages for Sweden were 17.92 and 16.81, respectively, and for the Argentine Republic 21.4 and 20.4, respectively.

Notes.—1. The percentage figures given above relate to the share of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, except in the case of Finland, for which country the figures relate to the share of the British Isles as a whole.

2. The values of the total imports upon which the percentages are based relate to merchandise retained for home consumption in the case of Sweden, Germany and the Argentine Republic, and to aggregate imports in the case of Finland, Norway and Denmark.

3. The percentage figures for Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark relate to goods purchased in the United Kingdom, and those for Germany and the Argentine Republic to goods produced in the United Kingdom.

Dr. HOWITT: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in spite of the trade agreement concluded with Norway, both the imports from and the exports to that country in 1933 were lower than in the previous year; and if he will state the causes of this decline?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the value of the trade was less in 1933 than in 1932, but the whole of the decrease
occurred in the first three-quarters of the year. The Anglo-Norwegian Trade Agreement did not come into force until the 15th July, 1933, and there was an appreciable increase both in imports from Norway into the United Kingdom and in exports of United Kingdom goods to Norway in the fourth quarter of 1933 as compared with the corresponding period of 1932. The improvement continued in January of this year.

MERCHANDISE MASKS ACT.

Captain STRICKLAND: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the difficulties standing in the way of his Department coming to a decision in the matter of the reversal of the Merchandise Marks Act; and whether he is aware that many proofs exist of the evasions of the existing Act now taking place to the detriment of British trade and industry?

Mr. RUNCI MAN: It is not possible in an answer to a Parliamentary question to explain at length all the difficulties. It will perhaps convince my hon. and gallant Friend that this is not a matter on which a hasty decision should be taken if I say that it is by no means certain that his proposal will commend itself to many important interests in this country, and that it presents considerable practical difficulties. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be happy to look into any cases brought to my notice.

TEXTILES (ANGLO-JAPANESE NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. REMER: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make any statement as to the negotiations between the textile interests of Japan and Great Britain?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE-MAN: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now any statement to make regarding the negotiations with Japan regarding cotton goods?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress whatever is being made in these negotiations?

Mr. LYONS: May I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has noticed the imports of hosiery; is he aware of
the great fear in the hosiery trade which is being caused by the long delay in the consideration of this matter; and will he put a time limit to these discussions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon, Friend puts down a question with regard to hosiery, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether any progress is being made in these negotiations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am inclined to deprecate these constant inquiries with regard to a conference which must, of necessity, be held behind closed doors.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that the negotiations have practically broken down?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, it is not.

SILK INDUSTRY (ANGLO-FRENCH NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. REMER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the negotiations with the French Government, he will give an undertaking that the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the silk industry will be taken into consideration, and that no final agreement will be arrived at without full consultation with that committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the course of the forthcoming negotiations with the French Government the interests of the United Kingdom industries likely to be affected will be borne in mind and full consideration will be given to any information and advice regarding those industries that the Import Duties Advisory Committee may be able to give.

TURKEY.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken in the direction of pressing the Turkish Government to cease discrimination against British exporters to Turkey; and will he insist upon Turkey fulfilling her treaty obligations so far as most-favoured-nation treatment is concerned?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to add anything at present to the replies I have already given on the subject. All aspects of this difficult question are being fully examined.

Mr. GIBSON: In view of the fact that the attitude of the Turkish Government in this matter has resulted in a loss of £1,000,000 to industries of this country, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government are taking a very serious view of the action of the Turkish Government towards British exporters?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I am afraid I can only repeat that it is being fully examined at the present time.

DENMARK.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in assessing the value of British exports to Denmark, it is the custom to include articles imported into this country and re-exported?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the trade returns of this country, exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom are recorded separately from re-exports of imported merchandise. Total exports include both categories.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the issuing of import licences by the Danish Government, under the control of the National Bank of Denmark, is affecting British imports; and whether, in view of our trade agreement with Denmark and the disparity of imports into the respective countries, he will suggest to the Danish Government that such licences should not be imposed on any British imports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 20th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller).

TYPEWRITERS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the number of typewriters imported into this country in 1933 exceeded by 130 per cent. the import of these machines in 1932; if the output of typewriters of British manufacture is still unequal to our requirements in this country; and if any further measures are contemplated to assist the production of typewriters in Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there was a considerable increase in the number of typewriters imported into this
country in 1933 as compared with 1932 and that the output of British manufacturers has increased in recent years. As regards the last part of the question I understand that the industry have already made an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase in the rate of duty.

Mr. HANNON: Would the right hon. Gentleman give any indication to this House that might encourage the Import Duties Advisory Committee to take action?

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Mr. LYONS: Is it a fact that this consideration has now been going on for some nine, ten or eleven months, and that during the whole of that period this country has been flooded with a foreign typewriter, and no indication of any sort has been given as to any steps to safeguard this important industry of the city of Leicester?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend has evidence of that, he ought to put it at the disposal of the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. THORNE: When you are considering the question of import duties, do you consider the social labour which is embodied in every article?

BROOMS AND BRUSHES (IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of brooms and brushes in 1933 increased by 30 per cent. in quantity over those of 1932, and that the average price has fallen from 2s. to 1s. 4d. per dozen; and whether he will take further immediate steps to deal with the dumping of these goods in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. It is open to the interests concerned to make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase in the duty upon these goods.

Mr. PERKINS: Have they already made an application?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that any supplementary application has been made, but I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. LYONS: May we know how long it takes the Committee, as a rule, to consider applications from these various trades?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no loss of time.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the final report of the Census of Production, it is proposed to publish a table showing the average net output per person in factories of varying sizes; and, if so, when the information will be available?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The final report on the 1930 Census of Production will contain, for each industry, a table of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. The report is being published in five volumes, of which Part I, covering 26 industries, was issued in October last, and Part II, covering 25 industries, will be issued next month. It is hoped to complete the series by the autumn of this year.

IMPORT DUTIES (MATCHES).

Dr. HOWITT: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of matches into this country from abroad during the year 1933 were substantially higher than in the previous year; and whether he will take this fact into account when considering the duty upon matches?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, all relevant factors will be taken into consideration when the duty on matches is reviewed.

BONDING FACILITIES (LONDON).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what bonding facilities have been created in the London area outside the Port of London within the last two years; and in respect of what commodities were these facilities granted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am having the desired particulars extracted from the published lists of bonded warehouses and will furnish them to my hon. Friend in due course.

BRITISH ARMY (HORSES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office for what reason horses have been imported from Southern Ireland for the use of the Army while instructions had been sent that no more British horses should be bought?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): My hon. and gallant Friend appears to have been misinformed. I am not aware of any such instructions having been issued.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If I send the hon. Gentleman is letter showing that there have been restrictions will he be good enough to look into it?

Mr. COOPER: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that there have been restrictions?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: More than restrictions—that there has been a prohibition on the buying of British horses—and will he be kind enough to look into it?

Mr. COOPER: Certainly. I will look at anything which the hon. and gallant Member sends me.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the Scottish Milk Marketing Board have decided that the winter price of milk, 2s. a gallon retail, is to be charged to consumers during the summer; and, seeing that this will mean an increase of £500,000 in cost to consumers compared with previous summer periods, and that the decision was made despite the protests of retailers and co-operative societies and without the consumers being consulted, what action does the Government intend to take to have the price reduced so that consumers, and particularly children, will get the benefit of abundant supplies during the summer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): With regard to the first part of the question, the fixing of milk retail prices is a matter in the first instance for the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. I understand that complaints as to the price so fixed have been
received and are now before the Consumers' Committee for Scotland.
With regard to the second part, I would remind the hon. Member that reports by the consumers' committee are, in accordance with the 1931 Agricultural Marketing Act, dealt with by the Scottish Committee of Investigation.
I am not in a position to make any statement as to future action until the report of the latter Committee has been received.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Did the Minister of Agriculture consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before he put this into force, that they were going to charge the same for the summer supply as for the winter supply?

Sir G. COLLINS: As I said in my answer, the fixing of the milk retail prices is a matter in the first instance for the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. The 1931 Marketing Act set up elaborate procedure by which the interests of the consumers are conserved, as I have indicated in the latter portion of my reply.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the convener of the milk committee in Glasgow has stated that this will mean £16,000 extra charge on necessitous mothers and children in Glasgow?

Sir G. COLLINS: I was not aware of that point, but I am very glad the hon. Member has brought it to my notice.

Lord SCONE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the representations recently made to him by the milk producers of eastern Scotland against the levy imposed on them by the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme?

Sir G. COLLINS: The representations received were lacking in specification, and I have asked that, if so desired, they should be repeated in detail. My Noble Friend will recollect that since the representations were made the situation has been altered by the announcement of the Government's milk policy.

HOUSING (SUBSIDY).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is the intention of the Government to continue the subsidy for housing beyond the
present time limit, owing to the large number of houses which will not qualify for same?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I assume the hon. Member refers to the subsidies payable under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924. These subsidies fell to be reviewed after the 1st October, 1933. A draft Order has been laid before the House for approval under which houses being built by private enterprise must be completed by 31st March to qualify for subsidy and houses being built by local authorities and not completed by 30th June will qualify for a reduced subsidy of £3 a house.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the local authorities are finding considerable difficulty in finishing their houses by the 30th June, owing to certain circumstances, and has he, along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, considered that matter in view of the representations from the city of Glasgow?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes. The matter is under consideration. The existence of a strike is, of course, under consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make any statement on the subject, in view of its great urgency to local authorities in Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: No. I think any question relating to the strike should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But apart from the strike—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate.

Mr. TRAIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a plasterers' strike on and that it is impossible to finish these houses—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

Mr. MAXTON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the officers of the Education Department who visited the Continent recently for the purpose of
studying Continental educational methods have made a report; and if such report is available for the use of Members?

Mr. SKELTON: The report is in course of preparation, but, until it has been submitted to my right hon. Friend and he has considered it, I cannot make any statement as to the last part of the question.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not eight or nine months since this visit was paid, and is it not rather a long time?

Mr. SKELTON: No. He returned early in November. We have, of course, had verbal discussions with him, and I hope his report will soon be in our hands.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Did they go to Russia and Germany?

Mr. SKELTON: No. My hon. Friend will be sorry to hear that they did not.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They went to Torquay.

Mr. HANNON: Was this information meant particularly for Scotland, or was the whole country intended to have the advantage of the report?

Mr. SKELTON: As far as we are concerned, an official of the Scottish Education Department took a tour for the purpose largely of studying technical education in certain European countries, and the result of his observations will be presented to my right hon. Friend in the form of a report. As I said in answer to the question, it is a matter for consideration whether the report shall be published or not.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: can my hon. Friend say whether they were seeking any information about educational endowments?

Mr. SKELTON: No. Thanks to my hon. Friends in this House, we have sufficient information on that point.

ADVANCED DIVISION INSTRUCTION.

Mr. MAXTON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many separate advanced division schools have been established in Scotland and the number of other schools with advanced divisions; what is the total number of teachers employed in this work; and how many of these are recognised under Chapter V
of the Regulations for the Training of Teachers?

Mr. SKELTON: The number of separate advanced division schools in Scot-land at 31st July, 1933, was 37 and, in addition, there were 1,557 primary schools providing advanced division instruction. The total number of teachers in separately staffed advanced divisions is 3,237, of whom 565 are recognised under Chapter V of the Regulations. In addition to the foregoing, there were 232 secondary schools which offered instruction leading to presentation for the day school certificate, i.e., instruction equivalent to that given in schools with two or three year advanced division courses. The instruction in these schools was given by teachers approved under the Secondary Schools Regulations.

SCHOOL INSPECTORS (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. MAXTON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appointments have been made during the last two years to the positions of inspectors or sub-inspectors of schools; what qualifications and experience of school work are demanded of applicants for such posts; where vacancies are advertised; and what is the nature of the competitive examination which applicants undergo?

Mr. SKELTON: During the last two years, four appointments have been made to the post of His Majesty's Inspector of Schools, and three to the post of sub-inspector. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the regulations which give particulars of the qualifications and experience of school work looked for in applicants for these posts. With regard to the third part of the question, vacancies are advertised from time to time in leading Scottish newspapers and in educational journals where that course is thought necessary. It is not, however, the general practice to advertise vacancies. A standing list of applicants is kept by the Scottish Education Department, and applications can be lodged at any time. The most suitable candidates are interviewed by a Selection Board, the members of which are appointed by the Civil Service Commissioners after consultation with the Scottish Education Department. The Board recommend for appointment the candidate who appears to them to possess the highest qualifications.

Mr. HANNON: Is there a competitive examination for these posts?

Mr. SKELTON: No.

Mr. MAXTON: Is there no foundation whatever for the widespread belief that the appointments to these posts are a piece of political patronage exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: No. I think that is a completely unfounded rumour.

DRAINAGE GRANTS.

Lord SCONE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the percentage of the grants made for approved drainage schemes in the year 1934–35 is to be 33 per cent., or 25 per cent., of the total expenditure incurred in each case?

Sir G. COLLINS: As recently announced, the rate of grants in aid of drainage schemes in 1934 will be an amount not exceeding 25 per cent. of the cost of the work approved by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Sir I. MACPHERSON: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that all the other agricultural authorities in Scotland regard drainage as being of prime importance, and will he explain to the House why if is that the grant is not 50 per cent. at least?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of the extreme desire by many authorities in Scotland for this grant to be increased. This is more a matter for debate in the House, but, in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend, I would say that one has to balance these things with the general situation.

OUTER HEBRIDES (ROADS).

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: 30 and 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is aware of the request for a road for vehicular traffic by the people of Leacklee, Kyles Stockinish, Cluer, Collam, Grosebay and Scadabay, Isle of Harris; that the county council's surveyor has reported that the population numbers 600 and that the cost of adding the 6½ miles of road to the list of highways would be £15,000; and will he take the initiative of getting grants from the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury;
(2) if he is aware of the petitions and correspondence that have been put before
the Department of Agriculture for years by the inhabitants of Carinish, Knock-queen and Cladach Carinish, North Uist, requesting the construction of a road for vehicular traffic to connect them with the highway; that the original survey estimate of £6,000 was modified to £2,024, by the crofters being willing to use the strand when the tide was out; and, as the Department of Agriculture consider the offer of a grant unlikely, will he take the initiative and get a grant from the Ministry of Transport or the Treasury?

Sir G. COLLINS: As I have explained to my hon. Friend in my letters to him on the subject, the question of the construction of these roads is one primarily for the county council of Inverness. I understand that the representatives of the Outer Islands districts on the county council will in the near future review and report on the whole subject of road construction in these districts. As regards the last parts of the questions, the county council must themselves make the applications for any grants they may desire.

Mr. RAMSAY: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the county councillors of the Outer Isles, after meeting together, make a united request for the construction of necessary roads, and other means of transport, will he then put these requests before the Government Departments concerned in order to enable the county councils to get the funds to provide adequate transport facilities for the people?

Sir G. COLLINS: The usual procedure is that these reports go first to the Ministry of Transport, and through that Ministry we come in touch with the county council. I can assure my hon. Friend that if all parties are agreed there will be no delay in the matter.

Mr. RAMSAY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the petitions and correspondence that have been put before the Department of Agriculture for years by the inhabitants of Lem-re-way, Isle of Lewis, requesting the construction of a road for vehicular traffic to connect them with the highway; that in 1912 they constructed 1,000 yards by free labour; that the highways committee have agreed to construct the road, subject to the approval of the county council and to grants totalling
75 per cent. from the Department of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport, and 25 per cent. from the local people by way of free labour; and, in view of the poverty of these people, will he forthwith get the road constructed without making any condition of free labour?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the desire expressed by the inhabitants of Lem-re-way for this road, and as I have stated in the course of recent correspondence with my hon. Friend the Departments concerned will reach a decision on the matter without undue delay. With regard to the fourth part of the question, however, the form that any local contribution to the cost of a scheme shall take is a matter for the local authority.

Mr. RAMSAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total cost involved in the construction of this road has been estimated at £1,000, and that the local people have been paying road rates for 60 years; is he further aware of the large amount of destitution in the district, and will he get this road constructed forthwith?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the facts mentioned by my hon. Friend, but, as I have told him more than once, the initiative for these matters must rest with the county council, which, as I have stated before, has to repair and upkeep these roads in future years.

SCOTTISH OFFICE (LONDON AND EDINBURGH).

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the numbers of the staffs employed in the administration of Scottish affairs in Departments for which he is responsible, and the numbers of such staff employed in Scotland and in London, respectively; what permanent heads of such Departments are located in London and Edinburgh, respectively; and whether he has in contemplation any arrangements for the transfer from London to Edinburgh of further administrative work affecting Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: The whole-time staffs of the Administrative Departments for which I am primarily responsible, exclusive
of messenger and other minor grade staffs, number 1,659. Of this total 1,542 or 93 per cent. are located in Scotland, and 117 or 7 per cent. in London. The only staffs employed in London are those of the Scottish Office and part of the Scottish Education Department. As regards the second part of the question, the permanent heads of the Departments dealing with agriculture, health, education, fisheries, prisons and mental deficiency and lunacy are located in Edinburgh. The only Department whose head is located in London is the Scottish Office, and I may add that arrangements have been made by which the permanent Under-secretary of State is available at week-ends for the transaction of official business in Scotland. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. I have made arrangements that a branch of the Scottish Office should be established in Edinburgh at as early a date as possible for the transaction of such business as can be conveniently carried on there, including in particular work connected with local authority administration in its various aspects. I have also in view a further transfer, at the earliest practicable date, of officers of the Scottish Education Department.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if he intends to deprive the House of the benefit of his presence?

Sir G. COLLINS: On no account.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERTIME.

Mr. TINKER: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to say what progress has been made respecting the investigation he proposed to institute regarding overtime being worked; and what districts are being dealt with?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): A special inquiry into the extent to which overtime is being worked in Lancashire, and the reasons for such overtime was begun in the middle of February and is proceeding.

Mr. TINKER: May I urge the Secretary for Mines to get on with this matter, as overtime is increasing and the idea is that the Secretary is taking no action?

Mr. BROWN: I have already pointed out that the work started in the middle of February and is proceeding. As the hon. Member knows, the work is complicated and difficult, and it will take two or three months.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is any inquiry taking place in this matter in Yorkshire?

Mr. BROWN: No. After consultation with the Miners' Federation we decided to make a survey in Lancashire to begin with. When I have the results, I shall have to see whether they will justify an extension of the inquiry.

CLOSED MINES.

Mr. TINKER: 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines have been closed down in Lancashire since 1927 and how many during 1933; and how many mine-workers there were in Lancashire in 1927 and how many in 1933?

Mr. E. BROWN: Since 1st January, 1927, 132 pits in Lancashire have been closed and not re-opened, of which 10 were closed in 1933. The average number of wage-earners on colliery books in Lancashire in 1927 was 89,000, and in 1933, 63,700.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines which have gone out of production within each of the urban authorities of Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley, and Westhoughton during the last 10 years up to date; the number of workpeople affected in each case; the number of mines still working; and the number of men still employed?

Mr. E. BROWN: The information asked for is being obtained and I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the distress which is caused in those areas by the continual closing of coal mines, has the Secretary for Mines any authority to investigate whether any pit can be continued in production and so prevent its closing down?

ABANDONED MINES (WATEE DANGERS).

Mr. TINKER: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his Department keep a record of abandoned mines where the accumulation of water in them is likely to be a danger to adjoining mines that are working; and, if so, what steps are taken to ascertain the depth of water in them?

Mr. E. BROWN: To assist in dealing with the problems of water dangers, my Department has compiled and published in five large volumes a catalogue as comprehensive as possible of plans and other records of abandoned mines. This is kept up to date by the publication of an annual supplement. A qualified surveyor is specially employed for this work. At mines where there is likely to be danger from accumulations of water in neighbouring workings, the statutory responsibility for taking the necessary precautions rests on the management; and the inspectors of mines make from time to time such inspections and inquiries as are necessary for the proper administration of the law. Usually it is not possible to ascertain the depth of water in abandoned mines unless the water comes up the shafts, but in cases where the head of water can be ascertained and where also it is relevant to the question of safety, the inquiries made by the inspectors cover that point.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it from that answer that, although the facts are known to the Mines Department, it is possible for one mine to be flooded by another and the Department has no authority to prevent the flooding of a mine by a mine that is already closed?

Mr. BROWN: I should have to make a long statement about the law in reply to that question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

MINERS' WELFARE.

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the present position with regard to the responsibility for miners' welfare provision at Wood End and the application of the Wednesfield Urban District Council for a grant in connection withh the children's playground?

Mr. E. BROWN: The Miners' Welfare Committee have decided that the responsibility for miners' welfare provision at Wood End falls on the Cannock Chase District Welfare Fund, and they have referred the urban district council's application to the Cannock Chase District Committee for their recommendation.

SILICOSIS (STONE DUST).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS): 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is prepared to set up
a committee to inquire into the effect of stone dusting as a contributory cause of silicosis?

Mr. E. BROWN: The problems of the causation and diagnosis of silicosis are being investigated under the direction of the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council and in other quarters. This, I believe to be the best method of attacking the problem of this disease, and at the present stage of the investigations I do not think the suggested committee would serve any useful purpose. At a later stage, however, I will take the suggestion of the hon. Member into consideration.

Mr. SMITH: Can the Secretary for Mines say whether stone dusting is regarded as a contributory cause? Is there any evidence of it?

Mr. BROWN: Not that I know of.

Mr. TURTON: Would it not be simpler to make silicosis an industrial disease under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. BROWN: No. There are many other issues involved.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men who are receiving a special sanction award under the arrangements made for dealing with claims submitted outside the statutory limit of seven years?

The Minister of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Approximately 2,000 officers and men are, at the present time, in receipt of awards in respect of late claims for disablement.

Mr. CROOKE: 41.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows in receipt of a pension under Article 17a and 17b of the 1924 Warrant?

Major TRYON: The number of widows currently in receipt of a pension under the Articles of the Royal Warrant referred to is about 9,750.

Mr. CROOKE: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of widows in receipt of special sanction awards because they were ineligible to receive a Great War
warrant award, under Article 17a and 17b of the 1924 warrant?

Major TRYON: The number of widows in receipt of awards under special sanction on the ground that, for one reason or another, they were found ineligible for awards under the provisions of Article 17 of the Royal Warrant is approximately 460.

SUGAR-BEET (ACREAGE, NORFOLK).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of acres under sugar-beet in the county of Norfolk for the last three seasons, respectively?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. The total acreages under sugar-beet returned by occupiers of agricultural holdings exceeding an acre in Norfolk in the last three years were as follows: 1933–99,834 acres; 1932–66,135 acres; 1931–41,980 acres.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MEDICALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the percentage of medically defective children in public elementary schools in England and Wales at the ages of 5, 10, 12, and 14 years; and the percentage in non-provided schools, giving the particulars for England and Wales separately for the years 1920, 1925, 1930, 1932, and to the last available date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): As the reply involves a number of figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Reply:

It is not possible to give the information in the precise form asked for in the question. The following table gives the nearest available figures; these relate to children found to require treatment as distinct from those needing observation only. Separate particulars relating to non-provided schools are not available, and separate figures for England and Wales cannot be given without an undue expenditure of time and labour.

ENGLAND AND WALES.

Percentage of children in public elementary schools found on routine medical inspection to require treatment (excluding cases of unclean-liness or dental disease):


Age Group.
1925.
1930.
1932.


Age 5 or at entry to school.
22.3
19.8
18.0


Age 8 +
26.1
22.5
20.3


Age 12 +
24.0
20.7
18.3

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Sir W. JENKINS: 49.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what number of nursery schools there are in England and Wales; what are the ages of admission and the ages they leave; are the children medically examined; if so, what is the percentage of medically defective children on date of leaving; and what is the nature of the defects, giving England and Wales separately?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: There are at present 58 nursery schools recognised by the Board of Education. All these schools are in England. Children may be admitted at the age of two and usually leave at the age of five. The children are submitted to periodical medical examination, and the defects discovered are similar to those found in children attending public elementary schools. No information is available as to the percentage of children suffering from defects on leaving these particular schools. They are all subject to the usual examination on entering the ordinary public elementary schools.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is it the policy of the Board to encourage nursery schools or not?

MILK SUPPLIES.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in connection with the scheme for providing milk for school children, it is proposed to leave open the method of payment or to instruct the different educational authorities concerned to defray the necessary cost?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is unable to add anything material to the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 22nd
February pending the submission of the programme of the Milk Marketing Boards. One of the objects of the proposed programme is to encourage an increased consumption of milk by making supplies available to school children at reduced cost to parents.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask how it is possible for the Government to encourage the consumption of milk when we have a statement from the convener of the health committee in Glasgow that it will cost Glasgow £16,000 more to supply necessitous children and mothers under this new arrangement?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the amount which will be paid to the municipal authorities to meet the extra payments entailed by the Unemployment Bill; and whether he has made any arrangements to cover the financial responsibility of local authorities in the matter of Poor Law assistance for any interim period which may exist between the operation of the present system and the coming into force of the Unemployment Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think my hon. Friend must be under a misapprehension as the provisions of the Unemployment Bill, so far from imposing extra payments upon local authorities, confer considerable financial benefits upon them. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made upon this subject in the Debate on the 27th February.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not a fact that the sooner the Unemployment Bill is passed into law the better it will be for local authorities from the financial point of view?

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give the local authorities the appointed day under the Bill?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the prosecution on the charge of stealing a bottle of milk of a Mrs. Gillespie, living in North-West London; what allowances were being
made by the public assistance authorities to her to keep herself and children; and whether he can state the facts in respect of this case?

The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Yes, Sir. I am informed that public assistance was given in this case from 2nd to 12th February. On that date Mr. Gillespie informed the relieving officer that he had work to go to on the following day, and after that date no further application for public assistance was made on behalf of the family.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In the circumstances would it be unfair to regard the account given in the "Daily Herald" as grossly misleading?

BORDER-LINE CASES (GROUNDSMEN).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. D. Clarke, of 11, Mount Street, Stockport, for many years employed as a groundsman at the Manchester High School for Girls, who contributed to the Unemployment Fund, was informed that his employment was non-insurable, subsequently became out of work, has been unable to obtain other employment for over two years, and has never received any assistance from the Unemployment Fund to help to support his wife and family; and whether, as the Ministry of Labour has reaffirmed that Mr. Clarke's former employment is uninsurable, he will take steps to ensure that such border-line cases as this are not treated as uninsurable occupations?

The Minister of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): As my hon. Friend is aware, from the correspondence which has passed between us, the employment referred to did not enable Mr. Clarke to qualify for unemployment benefit, since it was excepted from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme as being employment in agriculture. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the question of insuring employment in agriculture is dealt with in the Unemployment Bill which is at present before the House.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May I ask whether these very difficult cases of groundsmen employed in urban areas,
and classified as agricultural workers, who are unable to obtain employment in those urban areas because of the large amount of existing unemployment, will be dealt with in the new Unemployment Bill?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is really a legal question as to whether they come within Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with border-line cases. I will look into that point and let my hon. Friend know what my opinion may be, but ultimately it will be a question for legal decision.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May it be understood from that reply that it is the intention of the Government to bring those border-line cases within the scope of the Bill, subject, of course, to an examination of the details in the various cases?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If it is a borderline case, it will come within Clause 2, which is part of the Bill.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: As border-line cases of this character, affecting grounds-men who are employed on tennis courts and bowling greens, occur in almost every constituency, will the right hon. Gentleman supply all hon. Members with a copy of the answer which he is going to give to the hon. Member for Stoekport (Mr. Hammersley)?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure whether I understand the hon. Member's question. If this is a borderline case, it will be dealt with under Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with such cases, but whether it is a borderline case or not is a matter of legal argument.

Mr. MACLEAN: But does not the groundsman's case also include the case of attendants at bowling greens as well?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As to these particular cases, our view is that they are not border-line cases, but that these men should properly be described as engaged in agriculture. If a man does not accept that conclusion, it is open to him to appeal in the manner provided. We have told this man that he can make an appeal.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Minister say that the definition in the new Bill is to be left in such a way that legal decisions will be required to settle it?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member knows as well as anybody else that if he looks at Clause 2 of the Bill he will see what the Bill does.

Mr. LAWSON: May we take it that for these border-line cases special arrangements have been made under Clause 2 for the Minister to deal with them and decide whether they are in or out?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is also provided in Clause 2.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 56.
asked the Minister of Health what allowance public assistance committees make for dependent children of able-bodied persons claiming outdoor relief or transitional payments?

Sir H. YOUNG: Public assistance committees or guardians committees, where they use scales of relief, are under no obligation to report these scales to me. In the scales within my knowledge applying to able-bodied applicants for relief, the allowance assigned to a child, within various limits of age and size of family, varies from 1s. 6d. to 6s. 6d.

Mr. PETO: Would it not be entirely wrong to state, or even to suggest, that 2s. is the maximum allowance for a child?

Sir J. HASLAM: Has it even been suggested in this House that 2s. is the maximum allowance?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is it a fact that 2s. is the maximum allowance in Lancashire?

FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a list of those countries in which all contractual obligations to British creditors have been met punctually since 1st January, 1930, on all municipal or provincial loans?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am arranging for the circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT of a list of those foreign countries which have, according to the information in my possession, since 1st January, 1930, met
punctually all their contractual obligations to British creditors on municipal and provincial loans issued in the London market.

Mr. SMITHERS: When my right hon. Friend gives that information will he also give those countries which have not met such obligations?

Following is the list:


Czechoslovakia.
Holland.


Danzig.
Japan.


Denmark.
Norway.


Egypt.
Saar.


Finland.
Sweden.


France.
Turkey.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. T. SMITH: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the advisory committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations is to meet on 14th May to consider the British Government's communication concerning postal relations with Manchukuo; whether he will give assurances that the British Government will continue fully to respect the policy of non-recognition; whether he will press for the Chinese Government being given an opportunity to express its views and make proposals on this question to the committee; and whether he will invite the Government of the Soviet Union to reconsider its refusal of the invitation to sit on the committee?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir: a meeting of the advisory committee has been summoned for the 14th May to consider this matter. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 6th March to a question put by my hon. Friend, the Member for Islington, West (Mr. Donner). As regards the third part of the question, any communication or proposal which the Chinese Government may wish to make regarding this matter will doubtless receive full consideration from the committee. Any invitation to the Soviet Government would have to be issued by the League of Nations and not by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the League of Nations is likely to consider the recognition of an existing fact?

CHILDEEN AND YOUNG PEESONS ACT.

Mr. MANDER: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made up to date for the provision of remand homes under Section 77 of the Children and Young Persons Act?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I am not in a position to state the number of remand homes which have been provided by local authorities under Section 77 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that Sub-section (4) of that Section provides that nothing in the Section shall be construed as requiring a local authority to provide additional remand homes for their area so long as any places of detention provided under the Children Act, 1908, and available for use as remand homes, remain suitable for that purpose and sufficient for the needs of the area. I believe it to be the case, broadly speaking, that the places of detention provided under the Children Act, 1908, are now being used as remand homes. In many cases the local authorities have delegated to their education committees their responsibilities in the matter. I am confident that the authorities are alive to their duties and have given and are giving attention to the matter. I propose at a later date to take steps to ascertain the position generally.

AUSTRIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the present situation in Austria?

Mr. EDEN: I have no special information beyond what has appeared in the Press of any recent developments in the situation in Austria.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman remember Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I should not allow that language in a Question on the Paper.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I might ask whether the hon. Gentleman would
translate it: "God is on the side of the big battalions but Englishmen stand by those who are down."

Mr. EDEN: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps appreciate that the difficulty is sometimes one of definition.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any notice has been taken of the appeal to show clemency which was addressed to Austria?

Mr. EDEN: That was dealt with by my right hon. Friend a little time ago, and I have nothing to add to what he then said.

RATING RELIEF (BRADFORD).

Mr. HEPWORTH: 55.
asked the Minister of Health the total losses up to this year on account of rates of the county borough of Bradford arising from the derating provisions of the Local Government Act of 1929?

Sir H. YOUNG: The "loss on account of rates" of the county borough of Bradford arising from the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, as calculated on the basis of the figures of the standard year (1928–29), amounted to £310,922. No corresponding figure based on data relating to a later year is available. The general Exchequer grant payable to the county borough each year is about £434,000.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do we understand they have made a profit on the transaction?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, that would not be a necessary deduction.

SOUTH DOWNS (MOTOR RACING TRACK).

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state generally the present position with regard to the proposed motor racing track on the South Downs?

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that permission for the construction of the proposed motor racing track has been refused by the Portslade Urban District Council under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and the interim development order in force. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware a private Bill
has been deposited which has among its objects the preservation of the South Downs.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. ROBINSON: 60 and 61.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in order to allay the anxiety caused by the recent inquiries into the adequacy of the slum clearance schemes of Bootle, Croydon, Durham City, Leicester, Lewes, Maid-stone, Margate, Widnes, Whitby, Willes-den, and Worthing, he will cause to be published as a White Paper all the speeches made and evidence taken at the inquiries together with the terms of the inspectors' reports; and
(2) what were the results of the recent inquiries held in Bootle, Croydon, Dunham City, Leicester, Lewes, Maid-stone, Margate, Widnes, Whitby, Willes-den, and Worthing into the adequacy of the slum clearance schemes; whether the results have been communicated to the local authorities in question; and, if so, what were the terms of his communications?

Sir H. YOUNG: The inquiries to which my hon. Friend refers have served the purpose with which they were held of accelerating action by providing me with fuller information than could be obtained by correspondence or otherwise of the actual position in the towns. I have communicated my conclusions to the local authorities concerned. It would not be in accordance with the recognised practice that I should publish correspondence of this kind with a local authority. I am prepared to send copies of any such correspondence in which he is interested to my hon. Friend, or to any other Member interested.

Mr. ROBINSON: Is it not a fact that the authorities communicated with did not constitute a black list, but that rather it was an attempt by the Minister to ascertain whether his policy was being successful; and, if that be so, is it not necessary to publish the results of the inquiry so that the House and the country may judge whether the policy has been successful?

Sir H. YOUNG: Neither of those descriptions of the process would be justified. It was a step in the ordinary administrative process in order to obtain
as speedy action as possible, and in the most effective manner.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he can now give the House particulars of the programmes of slum clearance submitted by housing authorities?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. I will give the information to which my right hon. Friend refers in a White Paper giving particulars of the programmes. It will be available to hon. Members this evening.

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. Is it necessary for a question like that to be put by private notice? Ought it not to appear upon the Order Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not yet a quarter to four and hon. Members may always ask questions by private notice before a quarter to four after the questions on the paper have been disposed of.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA.

MONTREAL (ADMINISTRATION).

Sir GIFFORD FOX (for Sir CHARLES CAYZER): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that £12,000,000 of loans of the city of Montreal were issued in Great Britain, he will make inquiries of the Government of the Dominion of Canada as to the reason for the petition lodged last week with the Premier of Quebec that an independent commission should manage the finances of the city of Montreal?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have made inquiries of the Canadian Government and am informed that the rapid growth of the city of Montreal, which now includes the whole island and a population equivalent to one-tenth of the entire population of the Dominion, has led to a rapidly increasing expenditure, intensified in the last two years by effects of depression. This situation has given rise among citizens of Montreal to dissatisfaction which has expressed itself in a petition to the provincial government to appoint a commission to take over the administration of the city's affairs. I am assured that there is no ground for anxiety as to the city's capacity for meeting its engagements.

BRITISH IMMIGRANTS.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what percentage of immigrants entering Canada during the last three years were of British nationality?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: According to the annual reports of the Department of Immigration and Colonisation, Ottawa, the proportion of the immigrants entering Canada from all countries during the three years ending 31st March, 1933, who were of British nationality, was 50 per cent.

LOCAL LOANS FUND (ADVANCES).

Major NATHAN (by Private Notice): asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to make any announcement as to a change in the minimum rate of interest on new advances from the Local Loans Fund?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that it has been decided to reduce the minimum rate of interest on new advances from the Local

Loans Fund from 3⅝ per cent. to 3½ per cent. An announcement of the change will appear in to-day's "London Gazette."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how far he proposes that the House shall go to-night in the event of the Motion being carried?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): It is proposed to take the first six Orders. I may add that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit late nor is it the Government's intention, in pursuance of an observation made across the Floor of the House to hon. Members below the Gangway, to take consideration of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill at an unreasonably late hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 56.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[3.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, MaJ. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elmley, Viscount


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Christie, James Archibald
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Clarke, Frank
Everard, W. Lindsay


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fermoy. Lord


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Balniel, Lord
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Fox, Sir Gilford


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gibson, Charles Granville


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cooke, Douglas
Gillett. Sir George Masterman


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cranborne, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bilndell, James
Crooke, J. Smedley
Gluckstein. Louis Halle


Borodale, Viscount
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goff, Sir Park


Boulton, W. W.
Cross, R. H.
Goldle, Noel B.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Crossley, A. C.
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gower, Sir Robert


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dalkeith, Earl of
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dawson, Sir Philip
Grimston, R. V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Dickle, John P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Doran, Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Drewe, Cedric
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hanbury, Cecil


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dunglass, Lord
Harbord, Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eady, George H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Carver, Major William H.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hellgers. Captain F. F. A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Martin, Thomas B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Hepworth. Joseph
Meller, Sir Richard James
Smithers. Waldron


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Milne, Charles
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'K)
Soper, Richard


Hornby, Frank
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Howitt, Or. Alfred B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spens, William Patrick


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Munro, Patrick
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stevenson, James


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Stones, James


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nunn, William
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ker, J. Campbell
Patrick, Colin M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sutcliffe, Harold


Knight, Holford
Pearson, William G.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Petherick, M.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Law, Sir Alfred
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Train, John


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Tree, Ronald


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Levy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rickards, George William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Robinson, John Roland
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Mabane, William
Ropner, Colonel L.
Weymouth, Viscount


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, Albert' (Kirkcaldy)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McKeag, William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertt'd)


McKie, John Hamilton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wise, Alfred R.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salt, Edward W.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Macquisten. Frederick Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



Maitland, Adam
Savery, Samuel Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Scone, Lord
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




George Penny


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith. Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Dobble, William
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn. William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Wolsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the County Courts (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): The Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Blaker, Mr. Caporn, Mr. Janner, Major Llewellin, Mr. Maitland, Major Milner, Mr. Morrison, The Solicitor-General, and Mr. Turton.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Commander Cochrane, Mr. Crossley, Sir Percy Harris, Lieut.-Colonel Headlam, Sir George Hume, Mr. John Lockwood, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Peto, Sir Isidore Salmon, and Mr. Thorp.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UNOPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Sir Francis Fremantle.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL) (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Post Office (Sites) Bill: Sir Henry Cautley, Colonel Gretton, and Sir Basil Peto.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MINERS (PENSIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged.

Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Reduction of sums payable to fund and recovery thereof.)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment that I select is that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams)—in page 1, line 17, to leave out "one halfpenny," and to insert "three farthings."

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: On a point of Order. We were hoping that you would call the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson)—in page 1, line 16, to leave out "thirty-two," and to insert "thirty-four." It may be that your reason for not selecting that Amendment is that there was a Debate on the subject in the Committee, but, if that be so, may I call your attention to the fact that very largely that was not a Debate on the Amendment? What happened was that we found ourselves in what we thought was a legal difficulty, and the rest of the morning was spent in discussing that legal difficulty. I was wondering whether, in view of that fact, and of the comparatively short time that was spent on the Amendment in Committee, you could see your way to reconsider your decision and call the Amendment now.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is asking me why I did not call the Amendment to which he refers, I have come to the conclusion, after some years' experience, that, as power has been given to me to select Amendments without giving reasons, that is the safest plan to pursue. I may say that all Amendments are considered very carefully by myself before I come to a decision, and one of my objects is to give effect, as nearly as I can, to the wishes of the different parties who are concerned with the Amendments on the Paper. Mr. Edward Williams.

Mr. BATEY: Would you allow me to say another word or two on the point of Order? We were relying on the Amendment
in the name of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) being called, because it raises a question which in our view is very important. We are charging the Government with breaking the present Act of Parliament, and we thought that we were going to have an opportunity to-day of dealing with that matter. By not calling upon that Amendment, you prevent us from raising that point, which is most important to us. It deals with the present Act of Parliament.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not make a speech on the Amendment which I have not selected. I have already called upon the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). I have taken all those matters into consideration in coming to a conclusion, and I am afraid I cannot alter my mind. Mr. Edward Williams.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. Last week, on the British Hydrocarbon Oils Bill, when it was considered in the House, we were limited to two Amendments, and to-day again we are limited to two Amendments. Surely that is not going to become the practice? The fact that the Lord President of the Council wants to get his Bills through is no reason why we should be deprived of the right of Debate on the Report stage. We feel justified in asking that you should reconsider your decision in regard to these Amendments, and especially in regard to that of the hon. Member for Wigan and another Amendment further down on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered the question several times and have finally come to the decision that the first Amendment that I can take is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore. I propose to take in conjunction with that the Amendment next but one on the Paper—in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if at any time during the continuance in force of the principal Section as amended by this Act the Board of Trade are satisfied that the conditions in the industry are such as to justify an increase in the sum payable into the fund, they may by Order provide that, as from the date of the Order, the sum shall be equal to one penny a ton of the output of the mine, and this Sub-section shall have effect as amended by such Order.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House that the two should be discussed as one and that we should have a Division on each, if so desired.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "one halfpenny" and to insert instead thereof "three farthings."
On the Second Reading the Minister advocated the claims of the Bill on the ground that a halfpenny is all that the industry can actually afford. I am sure the majority of Members present realise that this is one of the meanest of all the Bills that have ever come before the House. We have never been confronted with anything so meagre and so mean as taking from the industry the penny which has obtained for many years and inserting a halfpenny. We have pressed for the continuation of the levy at the present figure in order that our recreation schemes and social facilities may continue, but, failing to obtain that, we are moving this Amendment hoping that the Minister will agree to a compromise. Our case is so reasonable that we can hardly believe that he will refuse it.
During the last few months many Ministers speaking in the country have intimated that there is some restoration of trade and that a substantial number of unemployed persons have been re-absorbed in industry, and they have referred to some improvement in the mining industry. They cannot have it both ways. If there is any evidence of improvement in the mining industry, they ought to discard this recommendation of the Committee. We have to assume that relevant factors were taken into consideration when the Committee made their recommendations, and the one relevant factor was that the economics of the industry were such that they could hardly have continued the payment of the penny. If, however, the conditions of the industry have improved, the Government, in the light of their own assertions, ought to be prepared to accept this Amendment. The levy of a penny is an infinitesimal fraction of the cost of production, and I am amazed, on an analysis of the ascertainments, that we should have had this recommendation. In reading the speeches in the Committee upstairs one feels that no one is really comfortable and happy about the reduction, and that they really look upon it as one of the most mean and miserly things that the Government was doing.
South Wales is paying practically 8½d. per ton in royalties though, of course,
that is substantially above the average of the British coalfields, but that 8½d. is not referred to at all. Nothing is being done to reduce the enormous tribute that the industry has to pay to people who are rendering no service whatever. In addition, the cost of the salaried staff has substantially increased as compared with pre-War days. Threepence a ton is paid in directors' fees, including managerial expenses. That is a substantial increase upon the pre-War figure. Further, while those figures tend to increase, the amount paid in rates is substantially reduced. Under the De-rating Act relief amounting practically to 3d. per ton has been received. To that extent the industry has been subsidised by the Treasury in block grants or other forms of relief at the expense of increased valuations upon other property in the coalfields. The levy is one of the most insignificant items of burden that fall upon the industry and should have been the Very last to be touched. This is a direct attack to cripple one of the finest pieces of social machinery ever introduced to alleviate the very grave lot of the miner, particularly when he is hemmed in in the mining valleys.
I am hoping that we may be able to persuade the Minister and Members of the House to accept this Amendment. Although the farthing may seem infinitesimal, it would bring a substantial measure of amelioration and comfort to a very large number of our people. If the levy is reduced from a penny to a halfpenny, we gather that the sum which will be available for the 20 districts in South Wales will be about £203,000 a year, that is, roughly, about £10,000 per district. It is impossible to complete the schemes which have been commenced, and it will certainly be impossible to open up recreation schemes in mining villages where, up to the moment, little if anything has been done. Reference has been made to the recommendations of the committee, and to statements made by one of its members, the nominee of the Miners' Federation. I think that if the report is looked into, it will be agreed by the Minister and most Members of the House that those statements included a very significant proviso, namely, that if the levy was to be reduced from a penny to a halfpenny, the other halfpenny should accumulate in the fund so as to become a nucleus for miners' pensions or something
of that kind. We should not object to a reduction to a halfpenny if the miners were to have something by way of social amelioration, or pension, or something that would be of pecuniary or social advantage to them, but the Government in this Clause are really destroying one of the very best pieces of social machinery that we have had to alleviate the lot of the mining community in this country in post-War years. It is really one of the meanest and most disgraceful things any Government could do.
There can be no argument on the ground of costs. Any coalowner who rises in this House and has the audacity to say that the farthing would have any appreciable effect in relieving the depression in the mining industry would be making an absurd statement. One knows that if the costs of production were reduced by a farthing, it would have no effect either upon the home market in any class or grade of coal, and certainly no effect upon the export market. I do not want to deal with the question of selling prices, although it is significant in this respect. It is known that the coalowners have not been, shall I say, greatly concerned in increasing the selling price of coal. If it were opportune and in order, one would be able to prove that for the last 10 years they have deliberately set about a policy of cutting prices in order to benefit gasworks, from which they were able to obtain substantial profits, and to sell coal at cheap prices to electricity concerns, from which they have also been able to reap enormous profits. In other words, subsidiary undertakings have been making enormous profits, while the mining industry has been virtually brought to bankruptcy. While the miners have been unable to rise above the minimum percentage, coalowners interested in gas and electricity undertakings have been making substantial profits, so that there has been no effort to increase the price of coal. It is a paying proposition to sell coal at a very cheap price.
Therefore, when they argue that this farthing would enable them to reduce the costs of production, and consequently reduce prices and so sell more coal, it is really a most fatuous argument. This farthing may mean about £100,000 a year. That additional amount for distribution in the various districts would enable the
miners, after leaving eight hours of darkness, gloom and danger in which they have to do, perhaps, the most arduous of all tasks of men in this country, to play bowls or tennis, or enjoy whatever the schemes may provide for them, to go to their institutes to play billiards, and at least to get away from the mentality of their drab, dark life. I am, therefore, hoping that all Members present will see the justice of our claim. The Amendment merely adds one farthing per ton to the 210,000,000 tons of coal produced, in order that the gloom may be partially removed, and a little more joy brought to the drab life of the mining folk of this country.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. PALING: If one goes through the whole of the committee's report as to the desirability of continuing the welfare work, one ought, I think, to come to the conclusion that in the minds of the committee there was a belief that there was sufficient welfare work still remaining to be done to warrant the full penny being paid for many years yet. Every conclusion, every paragraph almost, in which reference is made to that particular aspect of the matter bears out that contention, and yet, in spite of all, the fact remains that a reduction from a penny to a halfpenny is recommended. Moreover, the ways in which the halfpenny is to be spent will leave such a small amount for local conditions of welfare that it will be almost negligible. We are told that it is to go on for 20 years, and that that would be an advantage. I do not know whether that is so or not, but some of us hope that it will go for that period and longer. Even if the penny were continued for 20 years there would still remain some welfare work to be done.
Not only is the sum cut down to a halfpenny, but more is to be taken out of the halfpenny than out of the penny before. The amount that will go back to local people will not permit of more than a very small amount of welfare work. Let me try to prove my case. It was said in the last Debate that in South Yorkshire most of the welfare work had been done. Take my case in Bentley, where I am on the committee. The money due to us for the last three years has not been paid, because there is no money in the fund. So that out of the halfpenny, when it comes, we have to claim money due to us for the last three years. We have had none yet, because
there have been so many claims by various districts in South Yorkshire. There has not been nearly enough money to meet those claims, and they have had to ask for our claim to stand over until others have been paid, and until certain other money has been accumulated before helping us to go forward with our work.
So far from welfare work having been done, our trouble in Bentley is not that we do not know on what sort of work to spend money, but that there are so many things requiring to be done that we are falling out between the coalowners, the welfare side, and the various sections of the workmen's side as to which should have precedence. Some years ago we wanted to build a hall. We had actually bought the land. We also wanted a swimming bath there, but, owing to the cost of the scheme, we had to drop it, and adopt a scheme at rather less than half of the original cost, because the money was not there. We built the hall and decided that we would build an open-air bath, but had to scrap that because there was no money. We provided playing-fields, and have been wanting for years to raise the level so that they could be played on in winter particularly, but we have not been able to do it, because there is no money. Then the men want to provide aged miners' homes for the many aged miners in Bentley and district, but we have not been able to do it, because there is no money. The colliery company are not against us spending the money in the direction we want to spend it, but they want some of the money allocated to us to be spent in providing pit-head baths also. The men want the pit-head baths, and the owners are willing to provide the land and the water, but there still remain some expenses connected with it. We have been hoping against hope to receive money for this object, in addition to the other things which we want, and that we might find it possible to allocate a small proportion of the sum due to us to enable us to go on with the provision of pithead baths.
Another question which we have in mind is that of convalescent homes, which was discussed on Second Reading and in Committee. It is a very necessary provision for people working in such a very
dangerous occupation as that of the miner. We have provided for them in Yorkshire. It says in the report that the number of convalescent homes provided is still very small and that there remains a large amount of work to be done in this direction. I wonder how much can be done on the small amount given to many people in that direction? We are doing something in Yorkshire, but not as much as we want to do. We are proud of what has been done, but one of the greatest detriments, even in connection with the provision which we have made, is that the people whom we send, in the main have nothing with which to go to the convalescent homes. They want clothes and a certain amount of money. Whether it be the husband or the wife, the father or the mother, they like to go with something in their pocket. We have found scores of cases—and I dare say throughout the whole of South Yorkshire there are probably hundreds and thousands of cases—where people are willing to go to convalescent homes, and have been recommended to go, and it has really been essential that they should go, but they are not able to go because they cannot provide the necessary clothes.
Those are the things which we want in Bentley at the present moment. Hon. Members must not tell me that if we continued with the full penny for the next 20 years we could not find ways and means of spending the money, and doing it very creditably. To say that welfare work has largely been done and that there is no need to spend money in the future, is to be guilty of talking sheer nonsense in view of the needs which still remain. I saw a demand which had come from Durham on this question. They had gone to the trouble of sending round to every mining welfare committee asking them to send in their requirements for the next few years and also to send in schemes which had been started but which had not been finished. Each of those local committees went into the thing very carefully, and when the schemes were finally sent in it was found that they were such as to warrant the penny being paid for at least another 12 or 14 years. From every angle one looks at the business, the necessity for the penny being continued instead of reducing the amount is proved up to the hilt.
A subsequent Amendment asks for something which is contained in the first recommendation of the Committee, namely, that if the time comes when the industry finds itself in a better economic state than at the present moment, the Board of Trade should have power to increase the halfpenny, or the three-farthings—I hope that the Minister will accept the three-farthings which we are moving—to the full penny. I submitted on the Second Reading—and I submit again—that the question of the economic state of the industry did not come within the terms of reference of the Committee, and yet the main reasons advanced by the Committee, for the reduction from a penny to a halfpenny is the economic state of the industry. One of the employers' representatives in his minority report suggested that in his opinion the condition of the industry did not warrant a single halfpenny being paid in the future for welfare work, but that it was outside their terms of reference and they could not discuss it. That is the opinion of the employers' representative on the committee in his minority report. Yet in face of that fact the main recommendation said that they wanted the benefit to be reduced to a halfpenny mainly because the condition of the industry did not warrant a penny being continued.
The first recommendation stated that, owing to the present economic depression, the output levy should be reduced to a halfpenny per ton of coal raised, and that it should be continued for 20 years, but if and when the financial state of the industry improved the amount should be increased. I ask the Minister, in view of that particular recommendation and of the fact that they are putting in a halfpenny because of the recommendation of the Welfare Committee, to put in the other proviso that if and when the state of the industry permits the amount should go back to the original penny. Our subsequent Amendment will provide for that. It is not asking the Minister for a great deal when, if he cannot give us the three-farthings or anything in the direction of increasing the halfpeny, we say that at least he should concur with the first recommendation of the Committee and accept our Amendment saying that when the condition of the industry improves, we shall return to the penny.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. DICKIE: I rise to support the Amendment because I think that it ought never to have been necessary to make the proposed reduction, and I object even more strongly to the making of the reduction at this particular juncture. The Government are not only placing their supporters once again in a very difficult and invidious position, but they are supplying fresh arguments to those who are continually saying that the only cure for the evils in the industry is complete and absolute nationalisation. Why do the Government propose to take away one-half of the money available for this beneficent work?
Here we have the greatest of our industries, with the exception of agriculture, employing 720,000 miners, producing 210,000,000 tons of coal every year of the value of £130,000,000. It has a separate Department of State to itself, and every quarter the Department issues statements on the result of its activities. I have the latest one here, and it is very similar to almost all the other reports which have been issued during the course of the last few years. It makes extremely dismal reading. It sets out in the same depressing terms the low wages of the workers, low profits, and, in some of the districts, no profits at all, and shows that, as far as the whole of the country is concerned, there is a loss of 5d. per ton on the whole of the 42,000,000 tons of coal mined during the quarter. While this has been going on the three partners in the industry, the Government, the Mining Association, and the Miners' Federation have gone on wrangling over this matter like three characters in Mr. Milne's delightful book of children's stories, Eyore, Piglet, and Winnie the Pooh, sitting behind closed doors, aimlessly and endlessly discussing how to stop lions, tigers and the bears from stealing their dinners, and then when they find no dinner left for any of them finally quarrelling violently among themselves as to whose fault it is that they have to go hungry. And that is the position as I visualise it.
It may be said that it is wrong in a selected industry that part of the proceeds of the industry should be set aside for the special purpose of social amelioration, but I think the House will agree that it has long been conceded that the mining industry is in a special and particular position as far as this matter is
concerned, and that the general provision made by the State has never been adequate in so far as the needs of the workers and their families are concerned. Having accepted the principle, it is sheer folly to curtail the fund which has enabled this beneficent work to be carried on and which would have enabled it to be carried on in the same way for a very much longer time were it not reduced. Speaking within the ambit of my own experience, the work of the Miners' Welfare Committee has been the most beneficent of its kind ever undertaken in any industry. It is the biggest and most far-reaching in its moral social influence of any similar work that I have ever known to have been undertaken.
The Government propose to curtail that work by taking away one-half of the levy. I have always found it extremely difficult to understand that attitude. I have followed with close attention, not only in this House but upstairs in Committee, the speeches made by the Secretary for Mines, and I stand here to-day unconvinced either as to the necessity or desirability for it. It has been claimed that so much has been done already that it is no longer necessary to maintain the levy at a penny. That could only be said by those who were not familiar with the conditions in the mining villages before the work of the Welfare Fund was undertaken. Those of us who know these villages realise that there remains a tremendous amount of social work to be done before we can hope to be able to claim in any way that we have overtaken the evil consequences of 100 years of social injustice. That is the position as far as the mining villages are concerned. The fact that so much has been done has no validity. Less than a fortnight ago I had the privilege of looking at one of the schemes in the north of England. I was profoundly impressed by what had been done and by what the administrator who accompanied me told me yet remained to be done.
I will turn to the economic argument, it is said that industry cannot afford this sort of thing. I am prepared to admit that in the present state of the industry, and in face of the fact that the industry needs relief, nothing should be done which is likely to retard it. I have never been able to understand the attitude of the owners who speak as if the levy was
a charge on profits, and that if the penny disappeared their position would be greatly improved. The penny per ton is a charge upon the industry, and, if it were wiped out entirely, all that would happen would be that there would be one penny per ton more which would remain of the proceeds, which are divisible in the proportion of 87 per cent. to wages and 13 per cent. to capital. Therefore, all that the owners are seeking to obtain by this reduction is 13 per cent. of one halfpenny per ton. The owners have little to gain so far as this proposal is concerned. While I fail to understand why the Government should have introduced the Bill, I also fail to understand why hon. Members opposite should describe it as an owners' Bill, as was done in Committee. I cannot see how the owners are going to benefit in any way from it.
The penny per ton welfare levy can come from one place only, and that is the difference between the cost of production and the selling price of coal at the pit-head. There is no other place from which it can come, and it is here that we are able to place our finger on what I might call the weak spot in the organisation of the industry. Here we are also able to expose the fallacy that the reduction to one halfpenny will help in any way towards the recovery of the industry. We are able to show, I hope, that there are better, speedier and more effective ways of maintaining the prosperity which we all desire, whilst bringing the levy up to its original level. As I have already said, the reduction to one halfpenny will not help the industry. The House is entitled to ask me, "If the halfpenny reduction will not help, what will?" Some two years ago in a Debate on the Mines Act, 1930, almost the first speech that I made on the mining industry in this House, I pointed out that there was a very large volume of production on which the pit-head selling price could be raised substantially without doing the slightest harm to anyone. I exempted the great basic industries, the export trade and the transport services, which the the handmaidens of industry.
From the summary, it is clear that coal is being sold below the cost of production. Why is it that the mining industry should be continually made the Cinderella of industry? Why should it be regarded as being the only industry which, as a
normal state of things, cannot give either decent wages to its workers or a fair return to the shareholders? Why should the public utility concerns be allowed to buy their coal below the cost of production? The index figure for the cost of living to-day is 140, but the index figure for the selling price of coal is only 124, and one of the reasons for that is that these great concerns are buying their coal far too cheaply. The Minister is asking the House to consent to one halfpenny being taken from the levy. I ask the House to note that the public utility concerns use 26,000,000 tons of coal a year, which is only 12½ per cent. of our annual production of coal. Yet an increase in price of only 4d. per ton on those 26,000,000 tons of coal would provide the £430,000 which the Minister is seeking to take from the welfare fund. Spread over the whole of the community that extra cost would mean a very slight increase in the supply of gas and electrical energy. The increase would be so negligible that no one would know it was there.
I have no patience with the chairmen of these public utility companies who make a practice at their annual meetings of complaining that they are paying far too much for their coal. In my opinion, they are paying far too little. They ought to be paying at least one shilling to one shilling and sixpence more at the pithead. It is the pithead prices that we want to get at, because it is only by increased prices at the pithead that the miners and owners themselves can possibly hope to get advantage. The Government would be better employed in bringing that about than in seeking to cripple the work of the Welfare Fund for the sake of a halfpenny reduction. We do not need to be told of the very depressing period through which the mining industry has been passing. On the other hand, the public utility concerns are in a privileged position. They are protected by the Government because they provide something which is universally required, they fix their own prices. If the hon. Members will look at any financial newspapers, they will see that the £100 stock of these companies stands at £130 or £140, that their £l shares stand at 25s. to 30s., and that they pay dividends of from anything from 5 to 8 per cent. What a contrast from the dismal and dreary columns about the
coal and iron companies. One would need a microscope to find such companies whose shares stand at par or which have paid decent dividends for many years past, and yet the public utility concerns are not national wealth-producing concerns such as the coal mines.
Another source of supply for which the industry does not receive adequate payment at the pithead is domestic fuel. The mining industry receives nothing like adequate payment for the 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 tons of coal used domestically every year. That coal is not the coal which is referred to in the Summary as sold at average prices of 13s., it is graded coal and the price varies at different pitheads in different districts and may be anything from 15s. to 20s. There is a huge gap between the pithead price and the price the consumer pays. Since I came to London I have been astonished to find that the price of domestic coal here is about 150 per cent. over the price that is paid at the pithead. There are, of course, various directions in which the halfpenny reduction in the levy could have been obtained on the costing side, but I prefer to indicate the direction in which more revenue could be brought to the industry in order that, if the levy is to be reduced to one halfpenny, it may be brought back to the original figure as speedily as possible.
Let me turn to the retrospective effect of this legislation. I am well aware that all Governments find themselves forced on occasion to resort to this sort of thing, but it is a vicious practice and not one that ought to be encouraged. In this case, it places the supporters of the Government in a very difficult position. The report was published in January, 1933, and in April the Government announced their intention to implement the report. The law to-day is that the levy is one penny; yet without any authority or sanction from this House every colliery company in the country in making its financial adjustments has made provision for welfare levy at one halfpenny only. That is a very grave departure, and the result is to place some of us in a very difficult and very awkward position.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: Are we to understand that the mineowners have already deducted the halfpenny?

Mr. DICKIE: In actual practice it is somewhat difficult to follow. Those who sat on the committee upstairs will remember that the Minister acknowledged that this matter had been settled in advance, but to keep himself within the law he had been pressing for payment on account on the basis of one penny. We who would like to see the levy maintained are placed in the position that we have to vote for a reduction of the levy or to be accused of attempting to place on the shoulders of the various companies a burden for which, on the assurance of the Government, they have made no provision, which they would have great difficulty in meeting and which might conceivably force some of them into liquidation. That is a position in which the Government ought not to place us. The Secretary for Mines has told us that he is demanding payment on account on the basis of one penny. He is bound to do that in law but his references to the difficulty of obtaining payment seem to indicate something wrong in the method of collection. If the levy is a legitimate and a lawful charge on the proceeds of the industry it ought to be collected in the same way as any other charges of a purely commercial character. Monthly invoices should be rendered and payment obtained regularly on a given date after receipt of the statement of account, as is done every day in every colliery company's office in the country in ordinary buying and selling.
There is only one other matter to which I would refer. Along with some of my Liberal colleagues my name is on a Private Member's Bill to provide pensions for aged miners at the age of 65. It is a Bill which we had hoped to introduce and one on which we had hoped the Government would give us some encouragement. We hoped that as the other more urgent needs which had to be met by the fund were satisfied we should be in a position to earmark part of the Welfare Fund for this very laudable purpose. With the passing of this Bill that hope vanishes, and I see no alternative but that we shall have to withdraw our Bill. I should be of a mild, gentle, humble and forgiving nature if I felt grateful to the Government for that, and I hardly think that either the Government or the Secretary for Mines will expect us to thank them for it.
I am sorry to find myself in conflict with the Secretary for Mines, but I shall find myself compelled to support the Amendment. I appreciate the difficult position of the Secretary for Mines and the Government in view of the announcement of the 5th April, but I can see no reason for the reduction and no reason for the retrospective effect of the Bill, and I feel myself bound to support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude in regard to the Second Amendment. The industry has been passing through a very difficult period of depression, and I hope that in a short time there may be an opportunity for giving back the halfpenny which he is now taking away. I hope he will take power to do that, and thus remedy the damage which perhaps unwittingly he is doing to-day.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The two Amendments which the House is now considering go to the root of the Bill and cover the question of the amount of the levy and its period. Perhaps as one of the Inquiry Committee I might be allowed, shortly, to indicate some of the reasons which made the Committee recommend, as a temporary measure, that the levy should be fixed at a halfpenny. We were told by the mineowners that they considered there was no case for the continuance of the levy at all, but the miners representatives, on the other hand, were strongly in favour of a penny. When the report was issued the owners' representative, who did not sign the main report, recommended that for the remainder of the quinquennial period one-fifth of a penny should be paid and for the remainder of the twenty years one-eighth of a penny. The Committee, with great reluctance, came to the conclusion that there was a case temporarily for a reduction of one halfpenny, and in this Mr. Alfred Smith, the miners' representative concurred on the understanding that pensions were excluded. What were the reasons? In the first place, you had the fact that the fund was to be extended for a definite period of 20 years, and, in the second place, the undoubted fact that the cost of carrying out welfare schemes was less now than was the case when the fund was first started. A halfpenny levy would go very much further now than 12 years before. In addition, we were also in a
period of very bad trade indeed. For all these reasons, and as a compromise in order to get a report which we could send to the Government, we felt that temporarily there was a case for a reduction of one halfpenny. Has anything happened since then—the report was signed, 14th December, 1932—to make one change the view then expressed?
The two Amendments now before the House are well worthy of consideration because they go some way towards carrying out one of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee that, if and when the industry could bear it, when it was prosperous once more, the amount should be raised to one penny. I maintain that the position in this direction has been substantially strengthened since the report of the committee was issued. In the first place, we are told frequently and loudly enough by the representatives of the Government that industry is improving, and there is no doubt that that is true. Presumably, in two or three years more of the National Government they think, no matter what we on this side may think, that there is going to be abounding prosperity all over the country. If that is so, then the industry will undoubtedly in the course of a few years be in a position to revert to the penny. There is no doubt that there is plenty of work for the penny to do; the committee had not the slightest doubt about that. The second reason is that the Secretary for Mines proposes shortly to bring before the House a Coal Mines Bill, one of the features of which is that there shall be power to fix selling prices. That is a nice thing for the industry, to some extent they have it now, and they will be able by using that power to maintain the price of coal, or to raise it, and presumably make increased profits. That clearly suggests that they will be in a better position after that Measure is passed to pay one penny instead of a halfpenny.
There is a third point. I cannot feel a great deal of sympathy or patience with mineowners who still obstinately resist the tendency of the times and do everything in their power to prevent rationalisation, which most people outside the industry feel to be absolutely essential and vital and a normal procedure in that industry as in others. They are resisting the efforts of the Reorganisation Commission who are suggesting amalgamation
in various coalfields. If they are standing against the tendencies of the times, they deserve considerably less sympathy than if they were showing a readiness and willingness to fall in with schemes of rationalisation and scientific development in the industry.
Those are the reasons which make one look favourably on these Amendments. In the discussions which have taken place in Committee and in the House efforts have been made to enable the recommendation of the committee to be carried out, that at the right moment, when prosperity returns, the levy should be raised once more. We have two before us now, one raising the levy to three-farthings and the other a new Clause, which will give the Secretary for Mines power to raise it when he thinks proper. I have also a new Clause on the Order Paper, which is not to be called, dealing with the same subject. It goes a little further and suggests that either House of Parliament by a negative Resolution could destroy any proposal of the Government in that direction. There is also another alternative method in the Amendment that I have down, which also is not going to be called, that the rate should be a halfpenny for three years, from 1932 to 1934, and that it should be raised once more to a penny for the remainder of the 20-year period.
In supporting one or other of these Amendments, I feel that I am acting in accordance with what was in the mind of the Inquiry Committee, and that in passing one or other we shall in effect be carrying out the recommendation which they made. I hope the Secretary for Mines will be able to indicate that he is able to accept one or other of these Amendments. With regard to the second Amendment giving the Minister power by order to raise the levy, the alternative to that is a fresh Bill. We all know what that means. It is putting an unnecessary obstruction in the way of dealing with this matter when the time is ripe. Surely hon. Members will agree that if the coalmining industry is prosperous once more it is only right and fair to raise the levy to one penny again, and, if that be so, why not make the process as simple and as easy as you can. We know the claims of competing legislation in this House, and the delays and difficulties and obstructions there will be in this House or in another place.
It makes the possibility of proceeding on this line difficult and remote. If hon. Members are sincere in desiring to see the levy raised, surely it will be wise and reasonable to adopt the procedure laid down in the second Amendment. I hope that the Secretary for Mines will indicate that he is able to accept it.

4.57 p.m.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I seem to be the first Member to rise in support of what I imagine will be the attitude taken by the Secretary for Mines on the Amendments which are now under discussion. I am sorry to find myself in the opposite camp to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie). On previous occasions on mining matters we have been in agreement. I was a member of the Standing Committee but I did not take any very active part in its deliberations because I started, a priori, in favour of the general intention of the Bill, and I was anxious to find out where the opposition came from and its nature. Almost every line of the Bill was roundly and resonantly opposed by the stalwart representatives of the official Opposition, but I do not imagine that the Secretary for Mines was unduly impressed. He must have anticipated that opposition. He may have been more impressed by the fact that other Members of the Committee, who do not belong to the official Opposition, were only half-hearted in their support of some of the proposals in the Bill and expressed doubt as to how they would work. The first Amendment before the House is similar to the Amendment moved by the official Opposition upstairs, that this is not the time and there is no reason why the levy of a penny should be reduced to a halfpenny. I find that there is sympathy for that point of view amongst hon. Members who are not officially classified as Members of the Opposition, but on analysis they are Members who spend much time in connection with welfare work or represent constituencies where the mining communities are segregated and isolated, and where welfare work has been of the utmost benefit. I do not deny that; but as against that there are other hon. Members who do not represent the mining industry, or who represent areas in which mining is only part of the industrial operations, where the miner is not necessarily secluded and
segregated and where in his leisure hours he meets his fellow workers in other industries on common ground.
May I make an inquiry as to the case put forward so forcibly and so eloquently by hon. Members, who say that there is much more welfare work to be done than can be done if the levy is reduced from one penny to a halfpenny. I would like the Secretary for Mines to give us some statistical information on the subject. I say with due respect that I think the case of the official Opposition to the Bill this afternoon was a little exaggerated and that it lost some of its potency on those grounds. When the Bill is described as the meanest act that any Government at any time in any civilisation has ever done, etc., etc., it is worth while to point out that the proposed levy of halfpenny per ton is relatively a greater tax upon the industry than was the penny originally imposed in 1920. At that time costs were three times as high, and so were prices. If my figures are correct, in 1920 the pithead cost per ton of coal was in the neighbourhood of 37s., whereas to-day it is in the neighbourhood of 13s. Similarly, taking costs as a whole, if today the index figure is 100, the index figure in 1920 was 300. So it is a little difficult to substantiate the statement that this reduction is one of the meanest acts that could be perpetrated.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member give the price of coal in 1926 when the levy was maintained at a penny?

Sir A. BAILLIE: I have not those prices, but I do not think they would affect my argument.

Mr. TINKER: The prices in 1926 were not very much different from what they are to-day.

Sir A. BAILLIE: I think I am right in saying that the pithead price of coal in 1920 was 37s., and that to-day it is 13s.

Mr. TINKER: I do not dispute that.

Sir A. BAILLIE: The other argument I have set out to deal with is this: It is said that if there is to be improvement in the industry and an increase in tonnage that makes the present Bill even more iniquitous. But that is a double-edged argument, because if there is to be an improvement in the industry, if the tonnage of coal is to be increased for
instance from 208,000,000 to 258,000,000 tons, the more tons of coal that are produced the more money there will be with the halfpenny levy.
It seems to me that during the deliberations on the Bill there has been a disposition to treat the coalowners rather as the villains of the piece. The Bill has been described as a colliery owners' Bill and, to use a familiar phrase, as a sort of coalowners' ramp. I hold no brief for the coalowners. I am not one myself. But I do think that in all fairness some justification for the statement should be given. So far as I know the coalowners have never been disposed to take a narrow view of this welfare levy. In 1920 they acquiesced in the proposal. Again, in 1925 they agreed to a continuation of the levy for a period of five years. That was at a time when for some years already the owners had been paying practically all the costs of this levy, despite the fact that it was originally intended that with the operation of the wages agreements the cost of the levy would be borne partly by the owners and partly by the miners.
During the last few years, when the industry as a whole has been running at a loss, these contributions by the owners have had to be paid out of capital. In Standing Committee the Secretary for Mines referred to the difficulty which certain colliery owners had had in making their contributions, for in doing so they in effect had had to increase their overdrafts at the bank. In contrast with the difficulty which the mining industry, the owners, have had in meeting these contributions in recent years, I think it is in order to refer very briefly to the financial position of the fund itself. Without going into any details and without adding any opinion of my own as to what remains to be done—that is what I want the Secretary for Mines to give a little advice upon—I am informed that after every contingency has been taken into account there is still in the fund an unallocated amount of £660,000 in the districts and £160,000 in the central fund. Those two amounts are equivalent to four and a-half years' and two and a-half years' expenditure, respectively, at the rates of payment required under the Bill. If that is the case, and in view of the present depressed condition of the industry, the Secretary for Mines was right in following the advice of the
Departmental Committee in reducing the levy from one penny to one halfpenny, and to-day there is no case for an increase.
As to the second Amendment, which I am presently disposed to oppose, while I personally agree that a period of 20 years for review is too long, I should say it is only fair to both parties concerned that there should be a fixed period, and that if the amount of the levy was to be altered during that period it should not be done merely at the dictatorial whim or order of the President of the Board of Trade, but should be done only after due and proper consideration by this House. For these reasons I am not prepared to support either of the Amendments under discussion.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. DAGGAR: I wish to support the Amendment. After the Bill has been discussed on Second Reading and in detail in Standing Committee it is difficult to make any new proposition. From the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) I gathered that he does not anticipate that the Government will accept either of the Amendments. I am not permitted, I assume, to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member. Neither am I entitled to labour the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), that is the very low price at which the coalowners are selling coal now. But there are plenty of statistics available in the proceedings of this House which prove that the industries to which the coalowners are selling coal are making between £6,000,000 and £10,000,000 a year profit, and that on the other hand the owners are making considerable losses, as was emphasised by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I would point out, however, that if the coalmining industry is not a paying proposition that is not due to the miners, but is due to those who control the industry, because figures show that they reduced the price of coal to other industries from 35s. a ton to the paltry 13s. a ton to which reference has been made.

Sir A. BAILLIE: Let me repeat what I meant to point out. I hold no brief for the coalowners, but that does not come into the present argument. So far as
this Bill is concerned we are not empowered to dictate what the coalowners shall do.

Mr. DAGGAR: I am prepared to accept the admission of the hon. Member, that he holds no brief for the coalowners, but there is no more capable apologist for the owners in this House than the hon. Member. No one expected when he rose that he would advocate the claims of the miners. I think the coalowners can be complimented on the presence here of a Member who says that he had no brief for them. They have not sent a better advocate to this House than the hon. Member. The fact that there is no money in the industry is due, not to the miners, but to those who own the industry. We see in the newspapers expressions of regret because of the number of miners who lose their lives in order to provide comfort for other sections of the community. Yet here we are discussing whether a miserable penny per ton should be reduced to a halfpenny on grounds which, in my opinion, are the most flimsy that have every been argued in this House. The whole case for the Bill and the arguments which constitute the opposition to the Amendments are based on the Departmental Committee's recommendations. Anyone would think that the recommendations of that Committee were of Divine origin. There are in existence commissions' reports that have not been acted upon by the very individuals who are now defending the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, simply because the recommendations of the commissions which have the effect of benefiting the class of the community that this Bill seeks to penalise.
The Secretary for Mines appears to be very optimistic as to the quantity of coal upon which the halfpenny will be paid, namely, an output of 210,000,000 tons this year. In my own opinion, for what it is worth, there is no justification for that optimism. Even the improvement that has taken place in the first three months of this year compared with last year is, according to the official statement of the coalowners in South Wales, simply a seasonal improvement. The unbounded optimism of the Secretary for Mines, in my opinion, has no justification. I do not believe that the output this year will be in the region of 210,000,000 tons. But,
if there is justification for that optimism, then there is no reason why he should oppose these Amendments. We ask for their acceptance on the ground that the condition of the industry might improve. I emphasise the point already made, that considering all the regard shown for the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee, hon. Members opposite should bear in mind that one of these Amendments incorporates a recommendation of the Committee because on page 72 of their report they say that the figure per ton should be increased if and when the financial state of the industry permits, while on page 73 it is stated that the output levy should be reduced to a halfpenny per ton of coal raised, but that if and when the financial state of the industry permit the amount should be increased. The Secretary for Mines should, therefore, accept at any rate one of these Amendments, for two reasons. One is his own unbounded optimism and the other is the fact that the very Committee whose findings he defends suggest that when the financial condition of the industry improves the levy should be increased to one penny.
The simple proposition embodied in these two Amendments is that a slight increase should be made in the levy from a halfpenny to three farthings. At the same time we deplore and protest against the reduction from one penny to a halfpenny. The sums of money allocated from this fund have considerably improved the appearance of many mining towns and villages. The industrial and commercial greatness of this country has been largely secured by the production of coal, but few industries have contributed more to the creation of drab and dreary towns and villages than the coal industry. Evidence of that is to be found in the fact that few coalowners reside in the areas where the mines exist and also in the hundreds of unsightly heaps of rubbish to be found in the mining districts of Great Britain. No section of the community is more entitled to improvements such as are required in those areas than the miners. Representing a mining division, I should be the last to deny that considerable improvements have already been effected by the Welfare Fund—which explains our opposition to the reduction from a penny to a halfpenny and our support of these Amendments. In my division some
beautiful grounds have been laid out with money received from the Welfare Fund and some exceedingly good tennis courts now cover a place formerly occupied by rubbish heaps resulting from mining operations.
In scores of other places in my division and other mining divisions great improvements could be made. To reduce the sums available for such schemes is to arrest a necessary and laudable work. To accept the Amendment which provides for a slight increase, would be to assist in the promotion of such schemes. What hope is there, especially in the depressed areas, of these desirable improvements if the fund is depleted? Recreation grounds are required in all parts of the country. In my division efforts are now being made by unemployed miners to secure a piece of ground on which they can indulge in the harmless game of football. That in my opinion is the best means of keeping our unemployed in the condition in which we all desire to see them. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that we desire the reconditioning of our unemployed, if no advantage is taken of the possibilities of keeping them fit and in a satisfactory state of health. They can no longer look to the local authorities to assist them in creating the means of mental and physical improvement. That is admitted even by the Government in so far as they have made grants to the areas which many of us here represent.
What are the reasons for reducing the levy? It is true that the coalowners wanted one-eighth of a penny but that is a matter of policy. It was not because of the inability of the mining industry to pay the penny that they made that demand. The owners did as they always do when negotiating with the representatives of the miners. They asked for more than they expected to get and they suggested a reduction to one-eighth of a penny in anticipation of their friends the Government assisting them to get a reduction to a halfpenny. We are told that the industry cannot afford it. I would emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Consett that the wage agreements in every part of Great Britain provide for the levy to be entered as a factor in the cost of production, so that 85 per cent. of this miserable, paltry penny is paid by the men whose claims we contend should be considered.
In no single instance have the owners complained of their inability to pay mining royalties. From 1920 to 1930, the period during which this levy has been imposed, they have paid to the royalty owners no less a sum than £70,000,000. To the Welfare Fund up to 31st January this year they have paid only £11,000,000. They say they cannot continue to pay to the fund but they do not complain of having had to contribute £70,000,000 in royalties. In 1932 royalties of over £4,500,000 were charged on the industry compared with a little over £838,000 in respect of the levy. Royalties varying from 6d. to 1s. 6d. per ton were never objected to by the coalowners on the ground that the industry could not afford them, but continual complaint has been made of having to pay the miserable penny per ton to the Welfare Fund. I am not disposed to follow the hon. Gentleman who made a calculation as to the variations in the costs in the mining industry and the price of coal caused by one halfpenny per ton. He is a better mathematician than I am but I would call attention to some observations which were made in the Committee on this Bill. The statement has not been controverted that a halfpenny is only 1 per cent. of the cost other than wages and less than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total cost of the industry.
Let me give another reason and again I cite South Wales as an example. We have had for many years complaints from the coalowners that the local rates chargeable on the industry have been too high. In 1925 the local rates represented 6.75 pence per ton. In 1933 they were reduced to 1.34 pence per ton. If the industry could afford to pay a Welfare Fund levy of one penny when the local rates represented 6.75 pence per ton, obviously it should be easier for them to pay it in 1933 when the rates only represented a charge on the industry of 1.34 pence per ton. These are interesting statistics which the hon. Gentleman might consider in connection with his own observations. There is no complaint now of the charge in respect of rates but we have this objection to the penny per ton Welfare Fund levy. You can concede anything to the coalowners and they will still complain. I think the only time when the coalowners of this country did not complain was when, in 1921 to 1930, they had a subsidy
of £30,376,000. That is the only way to give them complete satisfaction. The resuscitation of the industry will not be accomplished by this reduction in the levy. The Secretary for Mines in defence of the reduction has emphasised the extension of the period during which the halfpenny will be paid. In my opinion the extension of the period is a poor substitute for the penny levy. A more fanciful, flimsy, unreal defence could not be imagined, and I hope that all hon. Members here will support these two Amendments.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. NORTH: I oppose the Amendment. I am not a coalowner nor have I any interest in the coal industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor a miner!"] I am just coming to that. I represent a constituency in which there are a great many miners and I presume that hon. Members will allow me to express my view upon this matter as I see it. I have done my best to follow this Bill closely and I cannot understand the opposition to it which comes from the Socialist party. When all is said and done it was the Labour Government who set up the Chelmsford Committee, and it is not for the Labour party to blame the National Government for implementing the recommendations of that committee. Much has been said about the Bill being retrospective in character but what about the Finance Bill? What about Supplementary Estimates? Every time a Minister comes to this House to ask for a Supplementary Estimate, is not that equally retrospective? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly it is. The only difference is that in that case Ministers are asking the House for more money. In this instance the Minister is asking the House to give him less money. As regards this Amendment and the reduction to a halfpenny per ton, can anyone say that from a strictly business point of view the proposition in the Bill is bad policy? Can anyone say that from a business point of view it is bad to exchange one penny per ton for five years, for one halfpenny per ton for 20 years?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: There is no assurance that at the end of five years the penny would cease.

Mr. NORTH: The hon. Member knows that when this levy was first introduced
it was for five years. Then it was continued for five years, and again for a further five years and at the end of that period it would have come to an end. I submit that it is not a bad exchange to give up one penny for five years in order to get one halfpenny for 20 years. After all, this is to go on for 20 years. A lot has been said in the past about this fund having a very large balance, and I think one hon. Member said it was a matter of several hundred thousand pounds. The reason is obvious. It is because there was no certainty that the fund would go on, and under those conditions you could not budget ahead as you would have done if it had gone on for a considerable period of years. That is why a large balance was kept in the fund. For these reasons I feel myself compelled to vote against the Amendment. I view this matter, I hope, quite openly, and I have tried to follow it carefully. As I have said, I have no special knowledge of the coal trade, but it seems to me in the circumstances impossible to do anything but vote against the Amendment.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: We support this Amendment because we are attached to the mining industry, and while it is true that the first Act was passed in 1920 for five years, it is also true that we in the mining industry expected that that Act would be continued for a much longer period, and I would like to remind the last speaker that other Acts of Parliament have been continued. In 1912 the miners' Minimum Wage Act was passed or three or five years, but it has been continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill ever since, and it is likely to go on for a number of years yet. It is a jolly good Act and ought to continue, with improvements, for a long while.
We have heard a good many reasons given for the introduction of this Bill. The Secretary for Mines said on the Second Reading and in Committee that this Welfare Committee was set up by Mr. Shinwell and that that was a good reason why the National Government should legislate on the lines of the Committee's report. I think it would have been far better, as I said at the time, if, instead of setting up the Committee as Mr. Shinwell did, he had put the responsibility of rejecting the penny on Members of the Standing Committee who were in a majority in 1930. However, that Committee
sat and reported, and we must remember that they reported on lines exactly like those laid down in our second Amendment, namely, that whenever the economic position of the mining industry is such as to justify an increase, the penny should be restored. The hon. Member who spoke above the Gangway said he held no brief for the coalowners of this country, but he put their point of view very well indeed.
In order to understand clearly our attitude towards these Amendments, one has to have regard to the history of the miners' welfare levy. It was instituted in 1920, after an inquiry by the Sankey Commission, when the most appalling conditions in the mining districts received publicity in nearly every paper in this country. There is no doubt that in the days when the mining industry was prosperous, even in pre-War days, when 1s. 6d. a ton profit was being made and £13,000,000 and £14,000,000 a year were being made, there was scarcely any welfare work done at all. I repeat that, as a body, the coalowners of this country have never been in favour of welfare work, and the very fact that it had to be embodied in an Act of Parliament in 1920 is sufficient proof of that.
There are two questions to be answered. The first is, Has the work in the districts been so completed as to warrant a reduction in the levy from a penny to a halfpenny? The second is, Is this easement for the mining industry likely to make any difference? As to the first, those who asked the Secretary for Mines to give statistics and evidence with regard to the work that wanted doing ought to read the report. Anybody who reads that report impartially and with a desire to get at the truth must admit that it shows conclusively that there is a lot of work that yet needs doing. Take, for example, indoor recreation and social activities. The Committee state that while it is true that there are 660 different places which has received grants for indoor recreation purposes, there are approximately 100 mining localities which have received no grant from the fund for any kind of recreational purpose, and in addition there are about 100 mining districts which have received no grant for purposes connected with indoor recreation. The Committee go on to say, on page 29 of the report:
It is important that the right kind of welfare facilities should be provided for the coming generation.
They go on to indicate that there is a need for the establishment of a number of clubs where the boys in the coalfields will be able to meet together. Then they say that there are scarcely any properly equipped gymnasiums. Those who have had anything to do with underground work will know that it is not work that the weakling usually stands for long. The work is hard as well as dangerous, and it requires strength, so that I can well understand the Committee urging that in every colliery district there should be a properly equipped gymnasium.
As to outdoor recreation, the miner is a man who likes outdoor recreation. We have had Prime Ministers who from that Box have told the House and the country that the miner in his support of football and cricket and all kinds of pastimes was one of the best. We believe in outdoor recreation. The Committee go on to say that while a great deal has been done since 1920, there is still a lot to be done both for children and for adults, and they advocate more playgrounds and a kind of seaside holiday camp. All through this report it is shown that there is plenty of room for the spending of the penny per ton rather than merely a halfpenny.
As to health facilities, we find that some districts have done fairly well with regard to convalescent homes, but that others have not. Lancashire desided to spend the bulk of their money on the provision of a very fine convalescent home in the Blackpool area, but the mere fact of doing that means that they have left undone a great deal of internal welfare work. With regard to Yorkshire, we have now three convalescent homes—one at Rhyl, one at Scalby, and one at Lytham—and we are finding them exceedingly popular institutions. The demand is so great that we are having to curtail the visits of men and to refuse scores of applications because we have not the necessary accommodation for them, so there is still plenty of work to be done in that direction.
Again, when you talk about convalescent homes, do not forget that there is somebody else in the coalfields besides the man and the boy. There are the miner's wife and daughters, and there is still plenty of room for convalescent homes which they can visit periodically.
Those of us who have had some little experience of mining conditions remember that one of the bravest souls in the house was the mother who had to look after three or four people working underground, who often had to be up at four in the morning drying clothes and getting the lads off to the pit. The strain and the anxiety of these hard times is having a very serious effect on the miners' wives and daughters, and convalescent homes ought to be established in every district in the country. There are still eight mining districts where no convalescent homes are provided, yet we have had Members getting up here and defending the reduction of the levy from a penny to a halfpenny. Let me say to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) that his speech to-day was one of which he should be proud, one with which I know that a good many of his colleagues who represent mining constituencies agree; and I hope the effect of that speech will be to rally in the Division Lobby sufficient of his colleagues who represent mining areas to carry at least one of these two Amendments.
With regard to the second question, as to the cost, this question always leaves me cold. For anybody to suggest that this reduction from a penny to a halfpenny will make any material difference to the mining industry is to ignore the facts of the situation. We had a discussion in Committee, in which the hon. Member for North Leeds (Captain, Peake) frankly admitted that he was a mine-owner and that he was going to defend this reduction from the mineowners' point of view. He went on to use an argument that I have always regarded as the historic argument, an argument that, so far as the mining industry is concerned, goes back for almost a century. Whenever any reform has been suggested in the mining industry, the argument has always been, "Yes, we would like to do it, but we are sorry we cannot afford it." You can trace that argument right through mining and workmen's compensation legislation. When in 1896 the Workmen's Compensation Bill was being discussed, a coalowner in this House said that the first Workmen's Compensation Bill would not only close pits, but would cause colliery companies to go into liquidation, destroy friendly societies, and bring ruin to the mining industry
generally. As hon. Members know, those wierd prophecies have never been fulfilled, and to talk about a halfpenny per ton relieving the mining situation is entirely to ignore the facts.
There are charges on the industry that are far greater than this welfare levy. The charges for health and unemployment insurance cost between 2d. and 3d. per ton in a county like Yorkshire. Can anybody say when any hon. Member who is a mineowner has protested against that being a burden on the industry? Not one of them has raised his voice against it. Take, for example, the question of mining royalties, which cost roughly 5d. per ton. When they tell us that royalty owners pay 70 per cent. back into the National Exchequer, we reply that they are not telling the truth, because every time we have raised this question of mining royalties we have always been told that there were widows and orphans who were dependent on them for their living, and the House knows that with a royalty owner drawing £200, £400, or £600 a year that 70 per cent. does hot go back to the Exchequer by way of taxation. If you want to reduce costs still further—it is true that you cannot reduce wages any further, as they are far too low now—for heaven's sake do it from another source than the welfare levy.
As the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) said, salesmen on the exchanges will give 6d., 9d. and 1s. a ton away in order to secure a contract. The moment they find they have made a bad bargain, they go back to the colliery and try to cut costs down by a farthing or a halfpenny a ton. The coalowners will have to deal with the selling price of coal. There is another item for remuneration of directors, general managers, mine managers and secretaries, which amounts to twice the amount of the welfare levy. The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds justified this expenditure on the ground that in pre-War days the mines paid their technicians too little, and that they now paid higher salaries. That is true, but some of us suspect that a good deal more expenditure is included under that item than is warranted. Two questions have to be answered—First, is the work sufficiently completed to warrant a reduction of the levy? I think the answer is that there is still plenty of work to be done.
Secondly, will this reduction from a penny to a halfpenny ease the mining situation materially? In my opinion it will not, and I want to appeal to the Secretary for Mines to accept the Amendment to make the levy three-farthings, or the Amendment which will bring it to a penny when the economic position of the industry warrants it.
The Secretary for Mines in Committee was very stubborn. I told him in Committee that while I disagreed with him in his policy, I admired him for his adaptability. He has been able to adapt himself to anything that the National Government have wanted done. He has defended this Bill as if it were the law of the Medes and Persians, and has not relaxed in any way. When he makes his prophecies as to what is going to happen in the mining industry, we on this side only hope that they will be trie. He reminds me of a lad who was employed at the pit where I worked. We had an average output of 900 tons a day. If we got 902 he said we were doing well, but if we got 898 he said we were doing badly. When I read the speech which the hon. Gentleman made at the weekend, in which he said there had been an increase of 1,000,000 tons per month as compared with last year, I thought, "What progress when we remember the awful decline that has taken place!" I also remember the hon. Gentleman's speech at Worksop when he talked of our exports to Iceland having increased by 50 per cent. I thought, "What a cold outlook for our coal trade if we had to depend on that!" We hope his prophecies will come true, and that he will be big enough to accept the levy of three-farthings and let the good work of the Miners Welfare Fund in the coalfields continue as the Act of 1920 expected it would.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: I support the Amendment, and endorse the appeal which has been so eloquently and persuasively made to the Secretary for Mines by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). I support the Amendment because it is a backward and retrograde step to curtail the facilities which exist for increasing the very meagre social amenities of our mining villages which are made possible by the welfare fund at its present level. Speeches have been made
this afternoon by hon. Members who represent mining constituencies. I represent a division which is in the heart of the Durham coalfield and I know something of the very bad and, indeed, sordid conditions which exist in many of the villages. I deplore any step which may be taken, as it will be taken under this Bill, to minimise the possibilities of improving the conditions of those villages. I appreciate the difficulties of the coal trade and the difficult times through which the industry is passing, but I must not forget that many of the drab and sordid conditions to which I have referred were caused and created by the cupidity of mineowners in the past, and I cannot blind myself to the fact that in years gone by every possible penny of profit was extracted from the industry without any regard to the amelioration of social conditions. Even so, I am not basing my judgment on arguments of that kind.
In coming to a conclusion on these Amendments, I have endeavoured to weigh up the two main considerations, namely, the unquestionable and admitted necessity of relieving the mining industry in its present difficulties, and the equally unquestionable and admitted desirability of improving the conditions in mining villages and providing the miners and their wives and families with some degree of those modest amenities of which they should not be deprived in this age of civilisation. After careful thought, my decision has unhesitatingly come down on the side of the men and their wives and families. I do not underestimate the financial advantage of even a fraction of a penny per ton to the mining industry in its present plight and in its efforts towards recovery, but I am not convinced that the infinitestimal advantage which will accrue to the industry by this halfpenny reduction justifies in the slightest degree the partial scrapping of that social amelioration which the Welfare Fund makes possible.
It is useless to say that the bulk of the work has already been done. The figures and the statements of the hon. Member for Normanton are sufficient to show that there is a great volume of work still to be carried out. Greater care may have to be exercised in the expenditure of the money which is obtained by this levy in order that waste should be
reduced to an absolute minimum, but that is, after all, a matter of administration, and can be dealt with by the committee. I have definitely come to the conclusion that this proposed reduction ought not to take place, and that it is not justified by any statement, fact or figure which has been placed before the House. The retrospective effect of the Bill causes me real concern, and I would ask hon. Members to give it careful consideration, and to give this legislative departure careful scrutiny before blessing it with their vote. Speaking as a member of the other branch of that profession to which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) belongs, and of which he is such a distinguished member, I deplore this action on the part of the Government in presenting him with both hands with such a marvellous and wonderful precedent for any future possible mischief which may occur to him.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The Secretary for Mines will realise from the number of speeches in support of the Amendment the feeling of the House against the reduction of the levy. There have been only two speeches from the other side, and both were not very emphatic in their feeling on the matter. The gist of one of them was, that while the Secretary for Mines was in difficulties, they as Members of a National Government felt they ought to do something to help him out. There are one or two points in the Bill which it is well worth while emphasising. Those who have followed this question know how the levy began. Just after the War we were getting a lot of sympathy in the mining communities, largely because of the patriotic feeling shown by them during the War. No body of men exceeded the devotion of the miners to the welfare of the country, and largely because of that it was felt that something ought to be done to ameliorate the conditions under which they were working and living. The Government of the day decided that a welfare fund should be set up for that purpose, and no one will deny that the levy has done good work.
Some hon. Members have said that many of the coalowners do not remain in the neighbourhood of their mines to see what happens. Those who have made large profits out of the industry are fortunate
enough to get away from the surroundings. Anyone who knows mining conditions, however, will realise the sordid conditions under which miners have to live. Mining devastates the earth. Among the coal there is a vast-quantity of material that cannot be used, with the result that we get in every mining village big dirt heaps which from time to time burst into fire spontaneously owing to the nature of their make-up. The drab circumstances of the people who live near those heaps can be realised. The heaps give off sulphur fumes, and I have known many times when on the direction of the wind depended the question whether life would be tolerable at all and when if the fumes were blown in one direction, the people had to get away from them. Such are the conditions that have caused attention to be directed to the mining areas. When we get examples, as we did this afternoon, of speakers who try to defend the cutting down of the levy, one wonders if they realise what it will mean to the miners. The levy has been a great asset to them in relieving their burdens and making life more tolerable for them. We on these benches put forward a plea that the House should realise what this welfare work means to people in the mining districts.
We are cutting down this levy by 50 per cent. To speak of cutting it by a halfpenny does not sound very much; 50 per cent. sounds much more. The halfpenny levy will bring in about £416,000, but of that sum £216,000, roughly, will be taken to help to put up baths—which is an object with which we agree—and £20,000 goes towards research, so less than half of the £416,000 will be available for the districts to help in establishing the better conditions which I have been describing. We are asking that the levy shall be increased by one farthing, which would give us £208,000 on top of the £200,000. I do not think anyone can realise what that additional farthing would mean to our people. I would like to know on what grounds people are trying to defend the present position. Do they think that the farthing for which we are asking would be the means of saving the coal industry, by assisting the coalowners to get markets for their coal? I do not think anyone would say that. Do they think that all the requirements of the miners have been satisfied? Anyone who has
read the Report of the Committee set up by the late Secretary for Mines will realise that there are a thousand and one schemes waiting to be put in operation when funds are available.
Another argument put forward by one hon. Member is that the miners have done very well, that the welfare levy would have passed out in five years' time; but we do not accept that view. The welfare levy was given, first, for five years, then continued for a second five years, and a further five years after that, and it is a possibility, nay a probability that it would have gone on yet another five years, until all the claims had been satisfied—indeed I could see no end to it at all. So we have not got the better of the position. I fancy that any House of Commons would have continued the levy. I cannot understand the present attitude of the Secretary for Mines after his Second Reading speech, when he said:
There is no question whatever that the work they have done has made a wonderful difference to our mining villages since 1920. It is one of the greatest pieces of social reform of our time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1934: col. 1400, Vol. 285.]
After that statement I cannot understand him defending a reduction of the levy by 50 per cent., and I can only think he does so—and I am giving him the best of the position—in the belief that the money we are getting at present for welfare work is meeting all our needs. But I would tell him that this work of social reform is not yet completed, and that he is in honour bound to continue it with a larger grant than is provided by this halfpenny. He has paid visits to mining villages from time to time and seen the work which is being done, and must have noticed the urgent need for it to be extended. Up and down the country there are many mining villages, and districts surrounding mining villages, which require the grave attention of the Government, and much could be done by this welfare levy.
We are asking for very little; we are making no big demand on the House or the mining industry. I hope hon. Members will realise what the miners themselves are already doing. I think few people realise the stoppages already made from the pay of the miners. I have a list from a colliery in my district, in January, 1934. This is what the men are paying from their scanty wages to try to help
themselves and for various other calls upon them: National Health Insurance 9d. per week, Unemployment Insurance 10d. Many people think the miners are paying nothing towards the baths, but they have to pay when baths are put in, and it is money well spent and nobody begrudges it. At this pit they are paying 4d. a week towards the baths. Towards the permanent relief club, which assists them in times of accident, because the compensation payments are not sufficient, they pay 6d. A small fund has been created to take them to the welfare centre at Blackpool if they are in distress, and to that they pay 1d. per week. For the institute they pay another 1d., and for hospitals they pay 3d. Another thing which hon. Members may not realise is that the oil they use in their oil lamps is not given them free; they pay 1d. per day for that. These items total, in the case of the ordinary day wage hands 3s. 3d. per week—which has to be paid out of earnings for, on an average, five days a week. The piece-rate workers have to pay more—4d. for every pick shaft and 6d. for check weighing, so they pay 4s. 1d. per week out of their wages. They have to pay to this welfare levy. Let it not be thought that the welfare levy comes out of the coal owners' pockets; it does nothing of the kind. The men themselves pay 85 per cent., as against 15 per cent. from the coalowners; but we are quite prepared, and so are the men, to pay their quota on top of what they are paying already. They do not object to paying when they know they are receiving value for money. When I can put forward the case that men who are paying 4s. 1d. per week in stoppages are asking to be allowed to pay a little bit more I think the House ought to agree to it and say to them: "Go on with your good work. If you think it necessary, we as a House of Commons will help you to carry it out."

6.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I have listened to the whole Debate, and am anxious not to repeat any arguments used in favour of the second Amendment on the Paper, which I support and for which I shall go into the Lobby, but I may be permitted to review one argument used by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He suggested that we should withhold our sympathy
from the coalowners on the ground that they were in conflict with modern tendencies in the matter of rationalisation. I do not think aspersions on those who oppose modern tendencies come well from those who sit on the Liberal bench. I cannot follow the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie) when he claims that the penny or halfpenny is not, in fact, being paid by the mineowners but, for the most part, by the men. As long as losses are being made on the ascertainments, the whole of the penny, or halfpenny, will fall on the coalowners.
The Bill seems to me to conflict with the general policy of the Government in regard to housing and welfare as a whole. We are pressing forward with a great programme of housing and welfare in order to improve hygienic conditions in every town and village, and nothing has contributed more to improvements in the isolated areas in which mining villages are mostly situated than the operations of this Welfare Fund. All the evidence I have collected from training centres in the past few months tends to show that young men, whether miners or the sons of miners, who come from areas where welfare work has been thoroughly established are malleable, easy to train and to divert to other occupations. I have had such evidence again and again. On the other hand, the managers of training centres say that young men from mining centres which have not been touched by welfare work are far more difficult to handle. They are fit for nothing except to remain as miners, and cannot be effectively transferred to work in other parts of the country. This is not the time to cut off even half the stream of money which has fertilised these valuable oases in which employers and employed have, as the late Sir Donald Maclean said, met for so long on equal terms. I do not say that we can do all that is asked for now, but I plead with the Minister to put into the Bill provisions which will enable his successors to do more at some subsequent date.
This brings me to the so-called constitutional point. I have applied my lay mind to it, but I can see nothing in it, and I cannot think that the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will find any consolation in
the discussions on this Bill if and when he desires to press forward along the lines described on other occasions, both inside and outside this House. Miners live in isolated communities, and their isolation has repeatedly been an embarrassment to the nation as a whole. That position has been broken down in the last few years more by Welfare Fund work than by any other single agency. Education has done little to break it down, even better communications have done comparatively little, but the work of the Welfare Fund—and I speak from the experience of a number of visits—has done an immense amount in that direction, and it seems a cruel thing to cut it off. I am reminded of the final words of Lord Chancellor Bacon's essay on Colonies:
It is the wickedest thing in the World to forsake and abandon a Plantation once in Forwardnesse.
That is an overstatement. We are not destroying the fund, but slowing it down, and I feel that as there is a tremendous crusade going on for housing and other improvements we should remember that this fund is one of the major weapons in the hands of the Government for the amelioration of the conditions of rather more than 1,250,000 persons.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Having listened to the Debate, I am certain that if an individual whose opinions were neutral were to come here he would decide that there was no course left to the Minister of Mines other than to accept the Amendment. An Amendment was never more mildly moved, and I hope that the Government do not misunderstand. Behind the miners' case is the whole organisation of the men, who are the operatives in the industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said that we had to remember that in England and Wales the colliers were far removed from big industrial centres. It is exactly the same in Scotland. What has brought me to my feet is my personal experience on Sunday last. It was a wild, miserable, raw day, and I went for a walk in the country. Four miles out from Glasgow I was astonished to see on the road a number of colliers going to their work. They worked at the Queensly Colliery. I made inquiries. I am going to tell the House about the type of man for whom I am
appealing to-day. They are the same type as those in regard to whom this House rang with praises during the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Minister of Munitions said that the miners were the backbone of Britain and the watch-dogs of civilisation. I will tell the House how they are treated now. In the Queensly Colliery, North East of Glasgow, and on the Glasgow-Edinburgh new road, about 100 men are employed, and they are working seven days a week. They are unorganised. Not one of them, surface man or miner, is organised in that colliery, and the result is that the surface men are receiving four different rates of wages, which vary from 4s. 6d. per day.

Mr. MOLSON: On a point of Order. Is it relevant to discuss the wages of miners on this Bill?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I myself was finding it a little difficult to reconcile the arguments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) with the Amendment which is now before the House.

Mr. TINKER: I think that the hon. Member is trying to show the need for some amelioration of the workers' conditions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am showing the actual conditions. I have sat here since Question Time, and have watched everything that has been going on. I will endeavour to keep within the bounds of your Ruling, Captain Bourne. Those wages range from 4s. 6d. to 6s. 8d. per day. Think of that. It is because I have seen those men that I am anxious that the Minister of Mines should step in with his welfare scheme to help to remedy the conditions. The colliery to which I am referring is miles away from anywhere. There are no houses within miles of it. It is away out in a country district, far removed, as it were, from human habitation. Those men have to go out in all kinds of weather. It is all right for individuals who are well-fed, well-clothed and in a comfortable job to smile when I am telling them about the conditions. These are the men who stood between the comfortable boys and the War. None of them was of the officer class, but they were the fellows who worked and held the trenches. They are
allowed only time-and-a-quarter for working on Sunday. They are young men 18 years of age who have to work out in all kinds of weather, and in the mountains, where they get 2s. 9d. per day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must raise questions of wages with the Minister of Mines on some other occasion. He is quite entitled to argue that it will be desirable to provide welfare for those men and that if this Amendment is not carried, that welfare cannot be provided.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: At the colliery about which I am speaking there is no welfare centre. I am trying to give the House a picture of the actual conditions which I have seen—I who was comfortable, and whom they resented coming to them because I was so comfortable-looking. They resented anyone coming to them. That proves how essential it is to do something for them. It is our duty to do what we can to raise their standard, and I am trying to show the House how far down the social scale they are. I can remember the time before we had welfare centres, and when the colliery owners of Scotland built the rows, which are still there, where there was no lavatory accommodation. I raised a question with the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time and got a Royal Commission in regard to a case in Stirlingshire which is still in existence, and where 200 families were living for whom no provision had been made and no amenities whatever provided, any more than if they had been wild beasts. A Noble Lady a Member of this House demanded to know the name of the owner of those houses, but the Speaker said that that did not arise. I had the next question, and I told the House that the name of the owner of the houses was Sir Adam Nimmo, the colliery owner of Scotland.
What do you see at the Queensley Colliery? After I had spoken to the men, I addressed them as they were going down. I went up to the cage and asked them if they had any idea of a better life, and if they ever went down to the welfare centre at Tollcross, Glasgow, from where I came. They said, "No," and that they had no time to go to any welfare centre. They said, "Don't you try to stop us working on Sunday, because we need all the work we can get." I can
remember the day when a Member of this House, who is still a Member, declared that the miners were lazy, and I told him from these benches that he was a liar. This is proof of it. Coming up the cage were two highly skilled men—"brushers" they are called. A brusher is a highly skilled man who is working at the most dangerous occupation at which a man can work in this country. I looked at them and saw that they had been working in water up to their knees, and that they were lashing with sweat.
I asked them how much they got for working all day on Sunday from 7 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon without a break—hard, slavish, murderous toil. They said, "Nine shillings each,"—for working all day on Sunday. Those are the conditions that prevail in the mines at the present time. That colliery is within the constituency of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Mr. Anstruther-Gray), and I told him that I intended to raise this question. I could go on long enough, and so could every man who has the welfare of this country at heart. We ought to stand here not to appeal to, but to demand of the Minister of Mines, because those men were promised everything during the War. They were to get "a land fit for heroes to live in"—that again is from a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It is only heroes who can exist in such circumstances as those which I have described.
I know that the Minister of Mines is one with us in this, and that his sentiment is with us. It all comes down to sentiment. The whole of the welfare scheme is sentiment. Sentiment is the most powerful influence left for good in humanity. It is the one thing about which they cannot say to us, "You have your price; you are doing this because you will be paid for it." Sentiment is something higher. I appeal to the Minister of Mines, when we are seeing a little more clearly as far as unemployment and the depression are concerned, to consider whether we could not extend the right hand of friendship to individuals who are far removed, in many cases, from their fellow men. Hon. Members should realise that the majority of miners have not the wherewithal to purchase something which is very valuable
to-day and which is accessible to tens of thousands of people, and that is a wireless receiver. The miner cannot afford wireless.
Through unification and organisation the men have been able to afford welfare centres. Everyone who is in the habit of going to the mining areas—and I have visited practically every mining area in Britain—knows the change that has taken place. In the 40 years that I have been connected with the trade union and Socialist movement, I can well remember when great mining villages had absolutely no counter-attraction; the people's lives were solely spent in work and sleep. Under those conditions there were individuals who would say hard things about the miners, the miners' lives, and so on. But a distinct change has taken place, because now the miners have formed one of the most powerful organisations in the world, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. I think of my great fellow-countryman, Bob Smillie, and of the fights that he put up on behalf of the miners to get welfare centres and to get better conditions, but we are still able, as I am, to state truthfully the hellish conditions that still exist in the mining industry.
Let it be remembered that the colliery which I have described, and which has no welfare centre, belongs to a powerful Scottish combine. It belongs to the Steel Company of Scotland. The Steel Company of Scotland can well afford to do justice by those miners in regard to a welfare centre, but it was essential, as far as I was able to see, that the House and the country should just get an inkling—that is a good old Scottish word—of what is actually taking place in the mines at the moment, that it is not all bread and roses. There are no roses; it is bare bread; and nobody in this House knows that better than the present Minister of Mines, with all the knowledge that he has been able to gather since he took on that high and responsible post, apart from his own personal inclinations as a man and a Christian. I appeal to him on behalf of those miners, those members of the working class who have had the intelligence to send us here—because again we have to remember that nothing was done for the working-class until the working-class sent working-class representatives here to defend them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The workers of this country, like those of
every other country, have never got anything until the workers' representatives demanded it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am just finishing. I hope that the House will treat this matter very seriously. It is no use whatever our coming to this House, and the House of Commons is no use unless we are able here to make some impression on the Minister. If what we state is not true, the House will know it, and we shall be turned down; but, if what we state is irrefutable, and if the Government turn a deaf ear to it, then it is no use our coming here. It is supposed to be the Constitution of Britain, and the idea of the House of Commons that we should come here and reason together, and we of the Opposition will give our contribution in order that the Government may get the benefit of the knowledge that we have in contact with the folk whom we represent. My last word is this, that I hope the Minister will not simply rise and give us a sterotyped reply, but that he will seriously consider the interests of the miners as well as of the mine-owners.

6.30 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I can assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that the Government have seriously considered this question. They considered it very seriously before they came to their decision. The hon. Member appeals to me personally. I have listened to every word that has been said in the Debates here and upstairs with the closest attention, understanding, as the hon. Member does, that the House of Commons is the place where representatives make their views known on both sides. I am not going to belittle anything that has been said on behalf of sentiment. Anyone who did that would be unwise. It was a very brave man who said that sentiment was the toughest thing in the world and nothing else was iron. I would remind the House, however, that sentiment may not only be powerful for good, as the hon. Member said, but it may also be powerful for evil. There is nothing more disastrous than ill-applied and unregulated sentiment.
In this case we have to consider a worthy sentiment affecting all Members of the House, whether they support the Government or the Opposition—the sentiment that affected the late Lord Chelmsford, the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, the sentiment that affected my late right hon. Friend Sir Donald Maclean, who was one of the first, in the course of the proceedings of the Standing Committee in 1931, to raise this very issue. If the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) asks me how I reconcile what I said on the Second Beading about the good work that the Welfare Fund has done with my support of this Bill, I would reply in the words of Sir Donald Maclean. The House would not have gathered that this Bill is the product of a report from a Committee of Inquiry set up by a Labour Government and by a Labour Minister—not, as is sometimes suggested, because he was trying to get out of a technical difficulty in Committee, but because, as he himself said both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, of the rather grave difficulties with which the industry was confronted and the difficulties in the collection of the levy. Sir Donald Maclean said:
I approach this subject with a good deal of impartiality. I will mention two or three impressions that are left on my mind. There is absolute agreement that the industry itself is in a very serious financial position. All expenditure, however desirable it might be, should be brought within, not the ambit of bare necessity, but of what is really useful. I hold the view that the expenditure under this fund cannot be measured in terms of the actual expenditure itself. It has been of enormous value to the industry taken as a whole. Parliament has been thoroughly justified in the experiment that it has made.
After making that statement, and paying that tribute to the good work that the fund had done, he went on to discuss the economic issues and what has been discussed several times this afternoon, namely, the disputed point whether the men pay or whether the owners pay, which depends entirely upon where the level of wages may be in a given ascertainment. He went on to say:
However desirable that might be"—
that was the doing of certain things to which he had been referring—
I do not think it is practicable, and we have to make the best of the position as we find it. One side says a farthing and the other a penny, and there is on the Conservative
benches a proposal that it should be a halfpenny. There is another suggestion that there should be a moratorium for a year. These are indications that some measure of agreement is really practicable. I have a suggestion to make myself. First of all, I should vote against a shortening of the period for the renewal of the fund. Five years is the right and proper thing, but, within that five years, surely there is a possibility of accommodation? In prosperous times no one would desire to see that penny whittled down at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee, C), 19th March, 1931; cols. 523–4.]
His proposal was that for a period of years the levy should be reduced to halfpenny. That suggestion was not made because he was not a man of sensitive heart and understanding. I quote him because he must be neutral now—he has passed to the great majority. He was facing the facts; Mr. Shinwell faced the facts; the committee of inquiry faced the facts, and the Government have faced the facts. The facts are that, in the present economic circumstances of the industry, the advice that the Government give to the House in this Bill, and the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment is that it is proposed to reduce the levy to halfpenny and to continue it, not for five years, but for 20 years. Hon. Members opposite have made it clear to-day, as they have on other occasions, and as I expected them to do, that the Miners' Federation objects to the reduction to a halfpenny. But the owners object equally strenuously to the level of halfpenny, and even more strenuously to its continuance in a Bill of this kind, as far as one Parliament can bind another, for 20 years. The fact is that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Government have made up their minds.
All the speeches this afternoon have proceeded on the assumption that it is perfectly easy to make a levy of one penny, and perfectly easy to collect it; but, as the Minister responsible for the statutory duty of collecting it, I assure the House that it is not easy. It is one thing to quote averages. Averages are very useful for getting a general idea about many things, but there are few things more misleading than averages when they are applied to a difficult and complex situation like that of the coal industry, with its 1,500 separate undertakings. What may be a bagatelle to one undertaking is a very serious financial liability to
numbers of others, and if hon. Members opposite, or hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie), were sitting where I am now, they would have to face the fact that, first of all, there has been an increasing lag in the collection of the contribution for the last periods during this great depression; and, secondly, that, although it is true, as I said upstairs in Committee, that no single mine, as far as we know, has been closed down, nevertheless it remains true that the Secretary for Mines, in the present distressed state of the industry, is constantly faced with applications for a period in which to pay; and, more than that, when that period is over, he is faced with the position that heads of undertakings come to him with all their accounts, showing that they have large overdrafts, that they are behind in other payments, and that they owe to the Welfare Fund an accumulated amount, sometimes over two or three years. Then the Minister has to make the grim decision whether, if he issues a writ in accordance with his statutory duty, the effect of the issue of that writ will be to cause the whole undertaking to close down and throw hundreds of men out of work. It is not by any means so easy to collect the levy as is calmly assumed by those who, quite rightly, put these arguments on the ground of very worthy sentiment.
Let me now come from the general down to the particular, and answer the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) on the subject of Bentley. The hon. Member is generally so accurate, and speaks on this subject from so much practical knowledge, that I did not understand, when he made his pointed appeal about Bentley, how he could inform the House that nothing had been done for Bentley.

Mr. PALING: I did not.

Mr. BROWN: I understood him to say that there had been no allocation for pithead baths for Bentley. If the hon. Member will turn to the report of the Welfare Committee for 1933, he will find on page 104, in Appendix 4, this statement:
For pithead baths, Barber, Walker & Co., Ltd., Bentley:


Grant from the Bath Fund
£25,744


Grant from the District Fund
£6,256"

Mr. PALING: That does not contradict what I said. I said that we had been discussing for years, first of all that we have had no allocation now for nearly three years from the district fund and we are in debt to that extent, and, so far from having nothing on which to spend it, we had so many things, that we had been falling out as to which should have the first preference. The colliery has been asking for money from the district fund for years past, and has only now succeeded in getting money from the new fund.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member said more than that. He quoted the Bentley case and based a general argument on that experience. But the figures I have quoted show that there is no question of the scheme being held up for lack of funds. The commencement of the building is being delayed pending the settlement of certain technical questions in connection with plans, fencing and other things.
An hon. Member asked whether I could advise the committee whether there was work remaining to be done. Of course, there is a good deal of work remaining to be done, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we are making provision for sufficient funds to enable the work described by the late Sir Donald Maclean as work which is brought within the ambit, not of bare necessity but of what is really useful. I have given the answer to the House, and I will add a statement of what is going to happen if the House gives the Bill a. Third Beading. The hon. Member talked about my boundless optimism, but my optimism was carefully bounded by the actual facts of the last three months, no more and no less. He may say that I have boundless optimism, but that does not make it so. Looking ahead, with the information that I have of what has happened in the last quarter of last year and the first two months of this, I do not think anyone is optimistic in thinking we shall go up instead of going downhill.

Mr. T. SMITH: I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. BROWN: At the end of the year we shall see who is right. Taking an output of 210,000,000 tons, the receipt from the output levy will be £437,500.
The estimated income from the Royalties Welfare Levy will be about £190,000. The interest on this basis will bring in about £21,000, making a total income of £648,500. At present there is a balance in the fund a considerable part of which is definitely allocated. The amount not definitely allocated at the end of February last was £815,650, but in respect of a substantial part of this amount provisional arrangements for its allocation are under consideration. While this balance remains, it is earning interest, and to that extent the income of the fund will exceed the figure of £648,500 already referred to. In the period during which the balance of £815,650 is being spent, the amount made available for welfare will be materially increased. Assuming that the balance were spent over the next five years, there would be an annual expenditure during that time of well over £800,000 on schemes not yet submitted to the Welfare Committee, and thereafter the amount available for welfare work would be nearly £650,000. In addition, there is a further sum of £20,500 available annually from endowment funds provided by the Welfare Committee for research work and for scholarships. How in the face of that could anyone call this a mean and meagre Bill, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) did?
In the judgment of the Government there is adequate provision in the Bill and in the accumulated fund to do all the work that is really necessary at the present time. When hon. Members raise the question of pithead baths, this Bill makes provision for a programme for 20 years of £375,000 a year for pithead baths. The answer to all the general speeches that have been made is surely this, that the Labour Government were faced with the problem. Mr. Shinwell planted the tree, and this House now has to make up its mind about the fruit. On the whole, we think that the Committee's report was a wise one, justified on the facts, and I must ask the House, therefore, to reject the Amendment.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I have never heard a more one-sided Debate in the five years that I have been a Member of the House. We have just listened to the thirteenth speech on this Amendment, 10 being in favour of it and three against. But it is not only the number of speeches
to which I want to refer. I think the Minister must agree that the quality of the speeches also has been heavily against the Bill. He has had three Liberal, one Conservative and six Labour speeches, all of which I felt were very convincing for the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) referred to the Minister's adaptability. I should prefer to call it audacity. Whatever reasons the Prime Minister may have had for offering him this position, I am satisfied that audacity was one of them. He says we must face the facts. That is just what we are doing and what he refuses to do. He tells us that the Amendment must be rejected, because of the consequences to the industry. He asks the House to believe that, if it were accepted, it would ruin the industry. That shows that he knows very little about the industry. The cost of producing a ton of coal, apart from wages, is over 4s. 6d. per ton. In the items of cost there is one to which he has never yet referred. I want to know, if the Government is in earnest about doing something to assist the mining industry, why they select this one item of cost in preference to all others?

Mr. E. BROWN: I might ask the same question about your Government.

Mr. MACDONALD: I am asking why this Government singles out this item of cost, and the answer is because the Labour Government did not single it out. They left the penny where it is. They did not attempt to reduce it and, when I asked why this Government does it, I am told because the Labour Government did not reduce it. The Minister cannot make out his case. He refers to the Report. I sat on the Committee for 18 months, and I defy anyone to read the Report through and find any reason in it for reducing the levy to a halfpenny. This is what happened. We sat through a very trying period. We were appointed before the financial crisis in 1931. We sat through the whole period of the cuts. Naturally, many members of the committee felt the position very seriously as regards the general condition of the country and they allowed themselves to be influenced, not by the position of the miners' welfare, but by the general feeling of depression. The work that is recommended could not be done in 20 years at a halfpenny per ton. The
Minister knows it and, if he does not, all his advisers do. The hon. Gentleman talks about the difficulty of collecting the money. In 13 years approximately £13,000,000 has been received from the welfare levy. We have outstanding today £100,000 of bad debts accumulated over 13 years, and the Minister says that he is experiencing great difficulty. Look at the lag in payments. He must know that there is no lag in payments except for certain collieries which are paying a royalty of 6d. per ton. Then we are told that they are experiencing difficulties in paying the penny. Of course they are. If this is the item of costs which they resent most—and it is—they will naturally create the maximum difficulty in the collection of it in order to influence the Government.
I want to know why the Minister cannot accept this farthing in so far that he specifies the value of the farthing for special purposes in the Bill. Not only does the Bill reduce the revenue by 50 per cent., but 50 per cent of the reduced revenue is specified for special purposes and, therefore, you are reducing it by 75 per cent. We ask for this farthing, which will double the amount of general welfare work. I can never understand the Minister for Mines. He professes great sympathy for the mining population, but sympathy to be of any value must be shown in practice. Here is an opportunity of saying, "We as a Government thought a halfpenny was the right figure. You and the Miners' Federation have clamoured for a penny. You have shown a reasonable spirit. You have come forward and said you will accept three farthings." Yet he makes no response in order to get a reasonable compromise. He says he has carried out the findings of the committee. The second Amendment is almost word for word the recommendation of that committee.

Mr. E. BROWN: There is a great difference between the two. The recommendation is that the penny shall be restored when the condition of the industry permits it, but it does not suggest that the Minister by order has the right to impose the extra halfpenny, and the Amendment does.

Mr. MACDONALD: I will read both the Amendment and the recommendation of the committee, and let the House decide for itself. Here is the Amendment:
Provided that if at any time during the continuance in force of the principal Section as amended by this Act the Board of Trade are satisfied that the conditions in the industry are such as to justify an increase in the sum payable into the fund, they may by order provide that, as from the date of the order, the sum shall be equal to one penny a ton of the output of the mine, and this Sub-section shall have effect as amended by such order.
Here are the words of the committee:
But, if and when the financial state of the industry permits, the amount should be increased.
I want to know what is the essential difference between the words on the Order Paper and the words of the report. If that is the only argument that the Minister can use, he is on very weak ground indeed. The mining industry is in a very depressed condition, and the Government are making serious efforts to improve it. We think that those efforts may succeed, and we think that they may bring back prosperity. If their own gallant efforts should succeed, will they allow the Miners' Welfare Fund to participate in the increased prosperity? We simply say, "Make a provision; six years is a long time, and during that period the mining industry may improve. If it does, make it possible in this Bill for the Miners' Welfare Fund to share in that prosperity."
Then we are told by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) that when we get prosperity the fund will prosper. He thinks—obviously he does not know anything much about the mining industry—that the only way to get prosperity in the mining industry is to increase output. Coalowners on that side of the House will tell him that this is not necessary. I am not sure that increased output is necessary in this country to-day. Prosperity can be brought back to the mining industry without an increased output. If we can get it back that way, well and good; at all events, increased prosperity may not mean an increase in the fund. Increased output may mean that, but it is necessary to realise that the mines are approaching their maximum output, and the mineowners know that there will be no substantial increase. No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) and the hon. Member next to him that the prosperity of the mining industry depends very largely on the way in which the
prices are manipulated. If this prosperity which has been sought so earnestly by the Government should be secured, then, we say, give this fund a chance.
I will not argue on sentimental grounds, although I have never seen any reason for cheapening sentiment in this House or outside. The miners' welfare work is, however, incomplete in every direction, and welfare work is a work that should never be retarded. If it is retarded, it almost ceases to be welfare work. To be real welfare work, the quicker it is done the better. Why, therefore, does the Minister refuse to touch anything else, and single this out? I can give him the answer. We are much afraid that the Government have come to an understanding with the coalowners on this question, and the position to-night is that they cannot accept any Amendment, no matter what arguments are brought in favour of it.

Mr. E. BROWN: There is no shadow of foundation for that statement.

Mr. MACDONALD: The Minister may say that, but we in the Miners' Federation happen to know that there is no body of employers in this country who are in closer touch with the Government than the coalowners. If this House were to vote on the argument as they have heard it to-night, the Vote in the Lobby would be as strongly in favour of this Amendment as a large number of the speeches have been. We know, however, that whenever the Labour Government proposed some step which we could not, as back benchers, accept, we were torn between our loyalty to our Ministers, whom we believed to be doing their best in a difficult task, and the necessity for holding our own opinions. The hon. Members who have heard those arguments, convinced though they must be that the Amendment ought to be carried, will troop behind the Ministers into the Lobby and vote against it. That is a course of conduct which I admire; I went into the Lobby in the same circumstances many times myself behind the Labour Government, and I could never refuse to vote for any proposal of theirs. I recognise, therefore, how difficult it is to persuade hon. Members to vote against the Government, but I do appeal to them, in view of the importance of the miners' welfare work, to support our Amendment.

7.5 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: Having sat all through this Debate, I make no apology for keeping the House even at this late hour in order to continue discussion on a subject which concerns the vital interests of so many men in this country. Although there may not be a great many hon. Members who represent miners, yet there are a great many miners in this country, whose welfare must be the first consideration and interest of many of us. This Bill seems to be based on two hypotheses. The first is concerned with certain obvious interpretations of the Mining Commission, which lays down that for the moment the mining industry is unable to bear the burden of this penny. Those of us who represent mining constituencies in all parts of the House would foe prepared to agree to that assumption. We agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) that the industry has often paid these contributions out of losses in past years. We also agree that for some time to come the industry may not be able to bear further burdens. I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to make some statement which will do him rather more justice and will make it easier for those who are his supporters to justify him before the many miners who will call us to account, and call this Bill to account before very long. Is it impossible for him to make some statement? I do not ask him to accept the second Amendment, but to make some statement to show that he believes, as we believe, that there is no reason why this alteration to one halfpenny should be permanent.
That brings me to the second premise on which this Bill is drawn, and which the Minister emphasised in his speech. That is, that the miners' welfare work is evidently practically done, because there is so much accumulative money that is practically undistributable. I do not know what hon. Member representing a mining Division will have the effrontery to rise and tell me that all the miners' welfare work in his Division is satisfactorily accomplished. I am prepared to dispute that with any mining Member who may be in this Chamber. I believe that, if you come to the question of miners' welfare, you will find that the problem has not been scratched. It is one thing to make curling rinks and football grounds, but, to my mind and in the opinion of
many of my friends with whom I have discussed the subject, some needs of the miners are far more fundamental than such etceteras as the object on which the Welfare Fund has been spent.
The essential needs of the miner are the essential needs of his home. We have heard a lot about the miners' wives. There is no reason to go into sentimentalities, but the essential comforts and needs of the miners' homes are the first consideration. There are many mining villages in which people have to go 50 to 100 yards in the snow to get water from a tap or to find sanitary conveniences. Anyone who says that the Welfare Fund of the miners has been fully employed is talking arrant nonsense or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. May I, therefore, ask the Minister whether, in the first place, he is satisfied that the calls upon the fund are really such as to meet the real needs of the miner's welfare, taking his home life into consideration; and whether, in the second place, he will be prepared to recommend that the fund shall contribute to improving the miners' housing conditions?
Some people may say that this is not the business of the Government, but of the mining companies. I beg, with great respect, absolutely to disagree. This country, in the first place, is doing what it can to improve and ameliorate housing conditions. In the second place, there is no colliery that is putting water and sanitation into its houses as a matter of charity, or giving the miner anything in any way. All colliery Members will bear me out when I say that the men have to pay practically full value for everything that is done for their comfort. We are agreed that this money, of which 85 per cent. belongs to the miners and 15 per cent. belongs to the owners, could not be better spent than in improving the miners' conditions. Whatsoever proportion of it is spent on improving sanitation and the conditions of their houses might be set off to the credit of both miners and mineowners. The miner will get his house at less rent than the increased rent that they charge him now, and the owner will be saved capital expenditure proportionately.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, for housing was
definitely excluded from the principal Act, and his argument can hardly be in order, Mr. Speaker.

Captain RAMSAY: I know, but my point to the Minister is that if he makes any alterations in this Act, the correct alterations are not to reduce money because the Act does not do what it should, but to make the Act do what it should and use the money in doing the proper thing. On that point I should like to say to my right hon. Friend that I hope that if he makes further alterations

in the Bill, he will bear in mind the real need, and not any arbitrary drafting of the Act, and not make the Act his grounds for reducing the contribution, which is already, in the opinion of a great many people, not giving the essentials which are needed for the miners' welfare.

Question put, "That the words 'one halfpenny' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 65.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[7.12 p.m.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cross, R. H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Doran, Edward
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, Cedric
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Duggan, Hubert John
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Sir Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Eady, George H.
Levy, Thomas


Blindell, James
Eastwood, John Francis
Lewis, Oswald


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Liddall, Walter S.


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Boyd Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Bracken, Brendan
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brass, Captain Sir William
Flelden. Edward Brockiehurst
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Fraser, Captain Ian
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Buchan, John
Gibson, Charles Granville
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKle, John Hamilton


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Butler, Richard Austen
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Goff, Sir Park
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Goldle, Noel B.
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Carver, Major William H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer. Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd S. Chlsw'k)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morgan, Robert H.


Christie, James Archibald
Hartington, Marquess of
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hartland, George A.
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Clarke, Frank
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick


Clarry, Reginald George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Pctersf'ld)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
North, Edward T.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hepworth, Joseph
O'Connor, Terence James


Conant, R. J. E.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cooper, A. Duff
Horne, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert S.
Patrick, Colin M.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peat, Charles U.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Petherick, M.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pybus, Sir Percy John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-T.)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Train, John


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Tree, Ronald


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tufneil, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Remer, John R.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rickards, George William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Weymouth, Viscount


Ropner, Colonel L.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spens, William Patrick
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. P. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stevenson, James
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stones, James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Strauss, Edward A.
Withers, Sir John James


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Salt, Edward W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.



Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Summersby, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sutcliffe, Harold
Sir George Penny and Mr.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Tate, Mavis Constance
Womersley.


NOES.


Allen, William (Stoke on Trent)
Groves, Thomas E.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztt'nd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rothschild, James A. de


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dickie, John P.
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
McKeag, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wilmot, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Martin, Thomas B.



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James.
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James

Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that if at any time during the continuance in force of the principal section as amended by this Act the Board of Trade are satisfied that the conditions in the industry are such as to justify an increase in the sum payable into the fund, they may by order provide that, as from the date of

the order, the sum shall be equal to one penny a ton of the output of the mine, and this sub-section shall have effect as amended by such order."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 272.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[7.23 pm.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dickie, John P.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Attlee. Clement Richard
Dobbie, William
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Harris, Sir Percy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Buchanan, George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Janner, Barnett


Cape, Thomas
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jenkins, Sir William


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cove, William G.
George, Megan A, Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kirkwood, David


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawson, John James


Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Leonard, William


Davits, David L, (Pontypridd)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Logan, David Gilbert


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Paling, Wilfred
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


McEntee, Valentine L.
Parkinson, John Allen
White, Henry Graham


McKeag, William
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilmot, John


Magnay, Thomas
Rea, Walter Russell
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rothschild, James A. de
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Maxton, James.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milner, Major James
Thorne, William James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Owen, Major Goronwy
Tinker, John Joseph



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Doran, Edward
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Drewe, Cedric
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Laighton, Major B. E. P.


Albery, Irving James
Duggan, Hubert John
Levy, Thomas


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lewis, Oswald


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Liddall, Walter S.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Eady, George H.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eastwood, John Francis
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elmley, Viscount
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bilndell, James
Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fraser, Captain Ian
McKie, John Hamilton


Boulton, W. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gibson, Charles Granville
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Glossop, C. W. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. sir Ian


Bracken, Brendan
Gluckstein, Louis Haile
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Brass, Captain Sir William
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goldle, Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Buchan, John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Milne, Charles


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Grigg, Sir Edward
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morgan, Robert H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Carver, Major William H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Castiereagh, Viscount
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Munro, Patrick


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harbord, Arthur
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartland, George A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
North, Edward T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nunn, William


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Connor, Terence James


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofrle
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Christie, James Archibald
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Clarke, Frank
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Clarry, Reginald George
Hepworth, Joseph
Patrick, Colin M.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Peat, Charles U.


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Hornby, Frank
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Cooke, Douglas
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cooper, A, Duff
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cranborne, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Craven-Ellis, William
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Remer, John R.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel. Dudley J. Boroato
Rickards, George William


Cross, R. H.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cruddas. Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintan
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tsids)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Spens, William Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Salt, Edward W.
Stevenson, James
Weymouth, Viscount


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stones, James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Strauss, Edward A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Summersby, Charles H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wise, Alfred R.


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Withers, Sir John James


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Train, John



Somerville, O. G. (Willesden, East)
Tree, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Sir George Penny and Mr.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufneil, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley.

CLAUSE 3.—(Purposes for which fund to be applied.)

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "aforesaid," and insert, "for which the fund may be applied."
This is a drafting Amendment, in order to make clearer the purpose of the Clause.

Captain PEAKE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Amendment is intended to make more precise the definition of the purposes for which the fund may be applied. Therefore, I accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Does it in any way make the next Amendment on the Order Paper consequential?

Mr. BROWN: It is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert:
but shall not include the payment to any persons of pensions or other similar payments, not being payments by way of temporary assistance.
It will be within the recollection of the House that on the Second Reading of the Bill it was explained that up to the present it has not been permissible for any money paid out of the Welfare Fund to be devoted to pensions. That was not because of any expressed prohibition in the Act of 1920 but on account of the definition of persons to whom payments might be made under Section 1 of that Act. The first part of that Section provided
that payments might only be made to workers in and about coal mines, and it appeared possible that upon a strict legal interpretation it would not have been permissible for the wives or dependents of miners to make use of miners' welfare halls. Therefore, advantage has been taken of this amending Bill to make it quite certain that purposes of that kind are included within the purposes of the fund. On the Second Reading, when certain questions were put to the Secretary for Mines it became apparent that the Bill as drafted had so widened the scope of the fund that it was possible that pensions might be included. Therefore, the purpose of our Amendment is to make it quite clear that the Welfare Fund is not to be used for the payment of pensions.
I should like to make it plain that I am not necessarily opposed to the payment of pensions to miners. I am fully aware that at the present time a new problem is arising as the result of the mechanisation of pits and the tendency to concentrate production upon the newer units. A new problem, different not only in degree but in kind, from which we have been suffering ever since the War, is gradually emerging. We are finding now that many of the younger men in the coalmining industry are able to get back into work or to be absorbed into other industries as, to a certain extent, industry revives, but in the case of a man of the age of 45 or more there is very little prospect that he will ever again be employed. Speaking for myself, it is my conviction that before the end of this Parliament it will be necessary for the National Government to make up
their minds what they are going to do about this new problem of permanent, chronic unemployment among the older men.
Whether that be the case or not, it is desirable that such a situation should be dealt with by Parliament as a great problem which it will have to consider. There can be no justification whatsoever for a scheme which would make it possible for the committees of the Welfare Fund to deal with this matter in piecemeal fashion. It was pointed out in the report of the Departmental Committee that the payment of pensions for miners between the ages of 60 and 65 would cost £1,380,000 a year, a sum far in excess of the whole of the Welfare Fund. If an attempt was made to pay pensions out of the Welfare Fund there would be a number of schemes which would apply only to miners, which would apply only to some miners, and only to miners in some districts. It would be at the discretion of the committees and would be a burden upon a single industry. Apart from that fact, we should not then be dealing with the problem in a comprehensive way. It is surely obvious that Parliament is providing a certain sum of money to be applied to certain specified objects, and it would be most unfortunate if some of that money were poured into the almost bottomless pool of pensions.
We have had a Debate this afternoon as to whether it is possible to justify the reduction of the levy from one penny to one halfpenny. Obviously, if at the same time that we are reducing the levy we very largely increase the possible purposes on which that money may be spent, the result will be that other important welfare work will be held up. Upon this point I should like to say to the Minister that if he is prepared to accept our Amendment it will bring the Bill within the scope of the recommendations of Mr. Alfred Smith, the representative of the Miners' Associations on the Committee. He says:
In the event of pension schemes not being allowed, I recommend that the output levy should be reduced from 1st January, 1933, by one halfpenny per ton for the same period as is recommended by the main report.
It is no illusory danger that some of the Welfare Fund may be used for the purposes
of pensions. At the present time welfare work has been held up to a very great extent, in Lancashire, where they have accumulated about £180,000 with a view to the payment of pensions. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), when he was opposing an Amendment of this kind, which I moved upstairs, argued that there was no need for it on three grounds: (1) because the money would not be available; (2) because the coalowners were no longer willing to approve of the money being devoted to pensions, and (3) because the central committee would disallow any such scheme. It seems to me that those arguments are a complete and absolute justification of the Amendment that I am now moving. If there is no possibility of pensions being set up then no harm will be done, but when the House of Commons is legislating with regard to a levy on a particular industry it is only right that it should decide exactly for what purposes the money is to be spent. To leave it to the discretion of the local committees would, I think, be unwise. Nor do I think that this House would be right in relying, as does the hon. Member for Ince, on the unfailing wisdom of the coal-owners in vetoing any scheme of which we do not approve.
The final argument that I would put forward is that in the Departmental Committee's report it is pointed out that pensions are an entirely different matter from the welfare schemes and that it would be most unwise to confuse these two entirely different things. They say that if there had been a unanimous recommendation on the part of those who appeared before them for some of the funds to be devoted to pensions they would have regarded that as evidence that the purposes for which the fund was set up had been achieved. Most of the coalowners who appeared before the Committee were opposed to pension schemes, and there was no unanimity on the part of the miners themselves. I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. The Minister upstairs undertook to give it careful and favourable consideration between then and the Report stage, and I hope he will be prepared to accept it.

Lord DUN GLASS: I beg to second the Amendment. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) has developed the
argument in respect of the Amendment, and I do not think there is any need for me to go further.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: I sometimes wonder whether it is wise to put one's arguments in a reasonable way. Hon. Members are so ready deliberately to misconstrue what one says to suit their own purpose, or to use it in what I consider an improper way. It is true that in Committee I opposed this Amendment. I showed that those who proposed it need have no fears. The reduction in the levy makes it almost impossible to carry through a pension scheme, but we are not arguing that the fund itself shall make sole provision for pensions. No such fund could do so. All that it can be expected to do is to make some contribution towards a pension scheme, or a superannuation scheme which might be in existence. We prefer the Bill as it is, without the Amendment. In Committee the Minister stood solidly for the Bill against all attempts to change it, and I hope that he will stand solidly against this Amendment, and will not be influenced because it has been moved by one of his own supporters. The Bill as it stands says that where owners and men in a district agree to make application to the Central Welfare Committee for some allocation to be made to a pension scheme they can do so. That is a very modest proposal. In the first place, the owners have to agree with the workmen, and I think the owners are a body of men who would first of all have regard as to whether the fund could be spent in any-better way than in pensions before they would agree to such an allocation. I do not think that the coalowners with all their faults, they are almost innumerable, would support an application for an allocation to be made for pension purposes without being satisfied that it was the best form of welfare work.
I can understand the argument that it is not welfare work. We think it is. There was no division in the Miners' Federation on this point. We in Lancashire pressed it with perhaps greater vigour than any district in the Federation, but every district is opposed to the Amendment, including the hon. Member's own district of Yorkshire. We have tried to get the Minister to accept some Amendments suggested by the Miners'
Federation. He has refused every one. I ask him to refuse this Amendment, and for once to accept the point of view put forward by the Miners' Federation. We claim that this is welfare work. The introduction of machinery in the mines is displacing the older miners. The manipulation of machinery needs young men of vigour, not old men, and from the age of 50 upwards they are being discharged to a greater degree than ever before, because there is now no work for them. We say that if in a district where coal-owners and miners set up a superannuation scheme some years ago and now find that owing to long periods of unemployment it is difficult to keep the fund solvent, they should be able to apply for an allocation from the Welfare Fund. The Central Committee, sitting in London, will decide whether the district shall use this amount for that purpose, or whether there is some other welfare work which is preferable to pensions.
The amount of money at the disposal of the districts makes pensions almost impossible. The owners will, in all probability, oppose such an application, but even if they agree I think that the central committee will certainly turn it down. I want the Minister to admit as a principle that the assistance of pensions schemes is welfare work, and if at some future date it may be necessary to use money for this purpose that the districts will not be prevented from doing so by this Bill. I do not want any legal difficulties put in the way of men and owners in a district, if they are agreed, making an application for such an allocation. If the Minister will leave the matter open, I am sure that he will never regret refusing the Amendment.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: No subject has given me more thought and care than this particular issue. Hon. Members will understand that from the inception of the Miners' Welfare Fund the point put forward by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has not been the view of the authorities. He and the Miners' Federation think that pensions are welfare work. In 1920 it was ruled legally that they were not, and through all the Acts of Parliament pensions have been regarded as not being welfare work. That was the position up to the introduction of this Bill. It was not illegal on account of any express prohibition in any of the
previous Acts of Parliament, but only because of the definition of the person who should be the recipient of the results of welfare work. In accepting one of the recommendations of the Committee, there were certain things about which there was a doubt—I put it no higher than that—like aged miners' homes and other things, to which no one objected, but which have always been in doubt as to whether they were legal or not, this Bill brings them in and makes sure that they are legal, but in doing so we have reversed the process of recent years and have made pensions technically legal.
I promised that I would give everything said in Committee most careful consideration. I have done so, and I am bound to say that I regret that I cannot do what the hon. Member for Ince desires. May I tell him that if anything tipped the balance it was his own speech and his own interjection. He put the case for the Amendment. He pointed out that the money was not there; and, secondly, that agreement could not be arrived at even in Lancashire, where they hold this view so strongly that they have held up other welfare work which should have been done, and have accumulated a fund of £162,000. The hon. Member went further and by an interjection raised the whole question of the scope of the Welfare Fund. He had said that it was a small matter. I said:
It is a big matter of principle. We are being asked to decide whether or not the old age pension is sufficient for certain kinds of aged people.
Mr. G. MACDONALD: It is not entirely that. Many of our older men are stopped between 60 and 65, before they get to the pension age. That is the type of case we have in mind much more than the man of 65."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 8th March, 1934; col. 149.]
What is the position if I refuse to accept the Amendment? Two things are done. In the first place, you raise hopes in the minds of many miners, especially those in that difficult position described by the hon. Member for Ince and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who have stopped work and have not reached the pension age, that this Bill would give them the right to a pension, a hope which, in my judgment, there is no present prospect of being made good. Secondly, we throw back on the Central Welfare Committee the decision as to whether or not any particular application
for a pension scheme shall be granted.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: Has not the welfare committee discharged that onerous duty now for 13 years? Does the Minister accept the principle that an allocation towards a superannuation fund is welfare work?

Mr. BROWN: The point is that the welfare committee has not done so for 13 years. They have always taken the position that it was ultra vires and turned it down on that basis. But the inquiry committee did discuss it as a matter of principle, and in their report they say:
Had we received evidence that there was a general desire on both sides of the industry for the Miners Welfare Fund to be used to provide pensions, we should have had to regard this as evidence that the present work of the fund had been largely done, but even this would not have altered our view that as a matter of principle a welfare fund and a pensions fund are different things and should be kept separate and in actual fact the evidence we received showed definite opposition to the proposal on the part of the owners, no universal feeling about it on the workmen's side (though certain districts strongly favoured it), and much to indicate that if pensions were provided from the fund it could only be at the expense of other important welfare work.
This raises a bigger issue than welfare work. It raises not merely the question as to whether an old age pension at 65 is enough, but whether it begins early enough, and I think the House ought not to put on the Welfare Committee the invidious choice of having, in the remote event of a pensions scheme being set up, to turn it down. We ought to make up our own minds, and if at any time there is an opportunity of bringing in a pensions scheme for miners it should be brought in on its own merits and financed by its own fund, not by a domestic levy for miners' welfare work. Weighing everything, I feel bound, having regard to the committee's report and the history of the fund, and also the desire which I am sure the House feels that no single miner should have hopes raised which cannot be fulfilled, to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I am sorry the Minister has come to that decision. I was hoping that we should get rather more generous treatment. We have not succeeded in
getting anything whatever; the only Amendment he has accepted is a limiting one. The question of pensions may not be much, but the Amendment takes away the right which existed in the Bill for people to spend money in certain directions if they thought fit. I agree that if agreement between the owners and the men could not be reached they could not proceed. If it was proposed to spend up to 4s. on pensions I agree that agreement could not be reached, but there may be the case of a district where the amount of money coming in is so small that it would not be worth while to bring in any schemes of welfare work, but, if that money was put into a pool, they might find half-a-dozen or 20 men whom they could assist by giving something in the nature of a small pension. In such a case it may be that both owners and men would consider it a desirable thing to do. You have cut out the possibility of spending money in that direction. I do not see why you should do so. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) said that before the end of this Government the plight of the old miner would be such that the Government would be compelled

to do something for him. I hope the hon. Member is right. I do not know whether he speaks with authority.

Mr. MOLSON: It was clear that I was expressing my own personal opinion as to what would be necessary sooner or later.

Mr. PALING: That rather alters it, for the hon. Member's personal opinion will not affect this Government. The things they have done and have not done have been so bad—

Mr. MOLSON: They have accepted my Amendment this afternoon.

Mr. PALING: It is a limiting Amendment. If the hon. Member will put down another Amendment providing pensions for the people he is talking about, he will soon see whether it is accepted or not. I disagree with the whole basis of the argument for the Amendment under discussion, and I am sorry the Minister has accepted it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 49.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[8.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fleiden, Edward Brockiehurst


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fox, Sir Gifford


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, James Archibald
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Gibson, Charles Granville


Apsley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Glossop, C. W. H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gluckstein, Louis Halls


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cook, Thomas A.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cooke, Douglas
Grattan-Doyie, Sir Nicholas


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Greene, William P. C.


Blindell, James
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grigg, Sir Edward


Boulton, W. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grimston, R. V.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bracken, Brendan
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harbord, Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham)
Dickie, John P.
Hartland, George A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Drewe, Cedric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Buchan, John
Duckworth, George A. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Duggan, Hubert John
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Dunglass, Lord
Hepworth, Joseph


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Eady, George H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hornby, Frank


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Carver, Major William H.
Elmley, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Smithers, Waldron


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nail, Sir Joseph
Somervell, Sir Donald


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
North, Edward T.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Nunn, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
O'Connor, Terence James
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spens, William Patrick


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmoriand)


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Patrick, Colin M.
Stevenson, James


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stones, James


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Peat, Charles U.
Storey, Samuel


Law, Sir Alfred
Penny, Sir George
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strauss, Edward A.


Levy, Thomas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lewis, Oswald
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Liddall, Walter S.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kllm'rnock)
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Summersby, Charles H.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reld, David D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mabane, William
Reld, James S. C. (Stirling)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Renter, John R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Train, John


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rickards, George William
Tree, Ronald


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McKle, John Hamilton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)
Wlliiams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salt, Edward W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Milne, Charles
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wise, Alfred R.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Withers, Sir John James


Mitcheson, G. G.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin



Morgan, Robert H.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones


Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)



NOES.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Marthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson. John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards. Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn William
Wilmot, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee!
McKeag, William



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLES FOR THE NOES.—




Mr G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

8.12 p.m.

Mr. JOHN: I wish to oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), in moving an Amendment on the Report stage, stated that after the Second Reading and the bludgeoning of the Bill in Committee it
was difficult for him to find new arguments to bring forward. After the further bludgeoning on the Report stage the difficulty is far more acute. I shall confine myself to objecting to the Bill on general principles. I object to the Bill because, in effect, it is going to restrict and to retard the general welfare work in the coalfields. One could understand some justification for the Bill if
welfare work as originally intended had been completed or were in course of completion. But that is not so. In spite of all the efforts of the central and district committees of the Miners' Welfare Fund to improve social amenities, owing to the magnitude of the work that they have to perform they have not yet touched the fringe of the problem of improving the social conditions of the miners.
The Bill reduces the amount of the income of the Welfare Fund and adds liabilities to the expenditure, which was not intended when the fund was originated. Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act of 1920 says, as to the purpose of the fund, that—
There shall be constituted a panel to be applied for such purposes connected with the social wellbeing, recreation and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines, and with mining education and research, as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve.
That Section of the Act was made necessary because of disclosures that were made after the Report of the Sankey Commission and subsequent commissions. Conditions in the mining industry were such then that it was necessary to introduce a Measure bringing about a change and improvement. For practically a century the coalfields had been de-developed and the coalowners had been utterly regardless of the welfare conditions of the miners. Mining villages had been permitted to grow up without any order or plan whatever. In some cases they consisted of wooden huts without water supply or sanitary conveniences. Houses were built around the pitheads and mean streets of drab and dreary dwellings came into existence. If local authorities or private enterprise provided houses, the coalowners came along and tipped rubbish in front of or behind the houses and these rubbish heaps in the course of time spoiled the view and spoiled the property in its entirety. It showed, as I have said, an utter disregard for the welfare of the miners that those conditions were permitted at a time when the coalowners were piling up fortunes. They had not time in those days to look after the welfare of the workers.
It was arising out of those conditions that the enactment which I have quoted
was passed in the Mining Industry Act of 1920. It was not until it was made compulsory on the coalowners to provide for the welfare of the miner that they adopted that policy. They were forced to do so. Prior to that anything in respect of the moral or physical well-being of the miners was absent from their ledgers. In this Bill it is provided that a portion of the output of levy is to be contributed towards the erection of pithead baths. This to some extent removes the responsibility or statutory obligation which was formerly placed upon the coalowners to another part of the panel. The Mines Act of 1911 imposed an obligation on the coalowners in connection with the erection of pithead baths. Until 1926 the coalowners lacked interest in the provision of pithead baths, but in 1926 another Measure was introduced which made it compulsory upon royalty owners to subscribe a 5 per cent. levy towards the provision of baths.
It may be argued that the absence of the provision of baths between 1911 and 1926 was attributable to lack of interest on the part of the miners. It may be said that the miners had the opportunity, provided they had balloted and had shown a two-thirds majority in favour of it, to compel the provision of baths. It may be true that the miners were not interested in the construction of pithead baths, but it is also true that there was even less interest on the part of the coalowners. In the 12th annual report of the Welfare Fund it is stated that of 296 offers of baths made between 1927 and 1929 only 102 or 34 per cent. were accepted and 115 were refused or deferred by the coalowners. In 58 cases the men were known to be or were stated to be opposed to the provision of baths. The 115 cases can be easily understood. They indicate the constant attitude of the coalowners, an attitude of which the conditions I have already outlined were significant.
The Secretary for Mines during the Report stage said that while the Miners' Federation were opposing the Bill because of the reduction of the levy from a penny to a halfpenny, the coalowners were opposing the Bill on the ground that they could not afford the halfpenny. The coalowners have never been willing to contribute at all in this respect. There is no instance where the coalowners have declared their willingness to contribute
towards the Welfare Fund. Only the compulsion of an Act of Parliament made the coalowners subscribe anything. If the coalowners object to the Bill because of the halfpenny levy it only shows that they are consistent in their policy. They are following up to-day the policy which they have adopted all along the line. They base their objection to the halfpenny levy on the ground of the depressed state of the industry. But in the days between 1911 and 1920 there was no depression in the industry. On the contrary, enormous profits were being made. In 10 years they made profits aggregating £20,000,000 from the industry. Their objection to the Bill is not really because of depressed conditions in the industry but because of the absence of any desire on their part to contribute anything at all to this fund. If such desire existed, why did they not provide for the welfare of the workers in a period when the industry was very successful?
This Bill is going to contract the ordinary welfare work because it is going to reduce the income of the Welfare Fund by 50 per cent. and, in addition to reducing the income, it is going to divert the greater portion of the balance to purposes for which it was not originally intended. In the case of pithead baths there is a 20-year programme and a sum of £375,000 annually is to be spent on the erection of baths. We are very pleased to find that there is to be a long-term programme. Indeed, if I have any objection at all, it is that the term is too long. I should like to see all these baths completed within five to 10 years, not on the lines suggested during the Report stage of shortening the term on the halfpenny basis, but on the lines of shortening the term by increasing the amount of money available for the erection of baths. This £375,000 is to be made up of the output levy of £179,000 and the royalties levy of £196,000.
No one is going to argue against the necessity for pithead baths. Baths of this kind are more essential in the mining industry than in any other industry. There are miners' homes with no facilities of this kind at all and these baths are a boon to the miners. But why take the output levy or the greater portion of it for the erection of pithead baths? The answer may be that it is desired to finish the programme in 20 years, that in order to do so it is
essential to spend £375,000 a year, that the amount of money which comes in from the royalties levy is not sufficient to make up that sum, and that therefore it has been found necessary to augment it by taking the greater portion from the output levy. The 1911 Act and the 1926 Act imposed obligations on the coalowners and a certain obligation on the royalty-owners, but is there no moral obligation on the royalty-owners for the provision of social amenities for the miners? They risk no capital in the coal mines, they risk no labour in the coal mines, and they have not sacrificed during this period of depression. It is the miners who have sacrificed, in low wages, and in some instances the colliery shareholders also have sacrificed.
The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines gave me some figures the other day as to the royalties received during the period when the royalty-owners have had to contribute 5 per cent. towards the erection of pithead baths. From 1927 to 1932 they have received £32,998,000, or practically £33,000,000, in royalties. How much have they paid towards the erection of pithead baths out of that sum? £1,346,000. Supposing the Secretary for Mines had devoted his attention, not to reducing the penny to a halfpenny, but to increasing the levy on the royalty-owners? They have paid less than a farthing per ton, but assuming he had increased that to a penny per ton, equivalent to the amount that is paid by the colliery owners, that would have given him sufficient money to erect the pithead baths in a less period than 20 years, without any need for transferring any money from the output levy. The Minister says this Bill is based upon the report of the Committee, as if that report was, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unchangeable. We have had other commissions reporting on the question of miners' welfare. We have had the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission. The policy outlined by the Sankey Commission was that there should be a penny per ton towards the miners' welfare. Why is the report of this Committee more sacred to the Secretary for Mines than the reports of those commissions?
There is no doubt, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) said, that this committee sat in an atmosphere of economy. The National Government
were economising in every direction, and in that atmosphere the mentality of the committee was affected, but if that committee sat now, in the atmosphere that the National Government have attempted to create with regard to the revival in trade, and the rosy outlook that the Secretary for Mines gives to the mining industry, undoubtedly that committee, instead of reducing the penny to a halfpenny, would increase it to 4d. It is very peculiar, in reading this report, to find from the first page to the last that every member of the committee is satisfied that there is a tremendous work to be done in providing social amenities for the miners and improving their conditions. On page 74 they recommend adequate facilities for indoor recreation and social intercourse. Then they recommend:
adequate facilities for outdoor recreation, having regard to local needs and existing facilities at every place where an appreciable number of miners live, both for children and adults.
These recommendations, if they mean anything at all, mean that the work of the Welfare Committee during the last 13 years has not been sufficient to meet the actual needs of the mining villages. If a penny per ton in the last 13 years has been insufficient to meet the needs of the mining areas, how in the name of common sense will a halfpenny do it in the future?
The Secretary for Mines, in his speech on the Report stage, said with great gusto that there was £800,000 at present in hand to meet claims that had not been submitted. It is very peculiar. In South Wales there are scores of schemes waiting. Some of them have been waiting in the hands of the Welfare Committee for over three years, and whenever they apply they are told, "We have not got any money. We have already mortgaged the future to the extent of two or three years." Therefore, there must be something wrong somewhere; and the South Wales coalfield is only a reflex of all the other coalfields. Scotland, Yorkshire, and Lancashire are in the same position. They all have a large number of schemes that are waiting, and the local or district committees have not sufficient funds to meet the needs.
This Committee suggests improving facilities for indoor recreation. If those needs exist and have not been fulfilled
on the penny per ton, how are they going to be fulfilled on the halfpenny? In one centre of the constituency that I represent practically every pit that was working has been stopped for the last two or three years, and where the coalowners in the years that are gone have refused to provide for the social amenities of the workers, they themselves have attempted to provide them by the contribution of a penny per week in order to erect libraries. Some of those libraries are now being closed. A month ago, on application, the district welfare committee in South Wales made a grant of £52, or £4 per week for 13 weeks, in order to keep that library open. At the end of the 13 weeks, however, that library will have to be closed. At present it is a centre of attraction for the middle-aged and old men. On cold mornings they have no other place to go to. They are unemployed. They go into the library, they sit down and read, and if the library has to be closed that is one source of indoor recreation that will be closed to them. If there is insufficient money in the district fund at the present to keep these libraries open, what possibility is there in the future for the maintenance of these libraries when the amount is reduced by half?

Mr. MOLSON: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that after those libraries are put up, the running expenses should be paid out of the Welfare Fund? In the past a capital sum has been provided in cases where a library or other facility was to be kept running by the district, but is the hon. Member suggesting that it should be maintained out of the fund?

Mr. JOHN: Yes, I seriously suggest this. Where libraries have been erected by the workers and maintained by the workers during a period of depression, when there is no income to maintain these libraries because of unemployment, I maintain that it is part and parcel of the welfare work to maintain and keep open these libraries until such time as the pits are re-started.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member does not suggest that it has been part of the normal work of the Welfare Fund up to the present to give grants for maintenance?

Mr. JOHN: I agree, not grants to maintain the libraries. The Secretary
for Mines has under this Bill increased the amount of the output levy which is to be devoted to pithead baths, research work, safety work and educational work. He has extended the scope of the levy by this Bill, and, if an extension can be made in one direction, it can be made in another. It would be a tragedy in the mining valleys if, simply because of unemployment, these libraries, which have been maintained for a number of years have to be closed. Take the case of outdoor recreation. The Rhondda Valley has, I think, been the biggest goldfield for coalowners in this country, but in Tonypandy no provision has been made for any welfare work whatever. During the last two or three years there has been a grant for the erection of a small hall to seat 150 people, but there are no playing fields for the children, no bowling greens, tennis courts or football grounds at all. In that area unemployed men have levelled off an old rubbish pit so that they can play football on it. An application has been in for a long time for money with which to turf it, but they cannot get it. Surely, instead of the revenue of this fund being reduced, it ought to be maintained on the basis of the penny levy.
Does anybody argue that the conditions of to-day are such that the miners of this coalfield can be satisfied? I cannot understand why, whenever there is any depression in the mining industry, whenever the coalowners are in a difficulty, whenever there is any need to economise, the economy every time is directed against the miner His wages have been reduced and his hours increased. We cannot reduce his wages any more. Indeed, he has to-day to be dependent on public assistance in the form of a subsistence wage. You cannot attack his wages any more, so you say, "The conditions of the industry are such that the coalowners object to continue paying this levy, and therefore we shall attack the social amenities of the miners." The Secretary for Mines, in his Second Reading speech, said that the welfare schemes have created an atmosphere in the coafield that has made it possible for the miners' representatives and the mineowners' representatives to work better together. The experience in the past will demonstrate the possibilities of the future, but it will be useless to get these joint committees
in existence and to map out work unless the necessary money is provided with winch to work out the schemes that have been planned. They will not be able to work out any future schemes, because the amount of money that will be going into the districts will work out at only about £10,000 a year.
Another feature in this Bill to which we object is its retrospective character. If we introduced a Bill to better the wage conditions of the miners or the compensation position of the miners, and we made it retrospective, everyone in the House, including the Secretary for Mines, would raise their hands in horror. They would argue the impracticability and impossibility of making such legislation retrospective. This Bill is a new departure in the legislative procedure of this House. Intimation was given to the coalowners that there was no need for them to contribute the levy which they were called upon to pay under the Act of Parliament, because, as far back as the 5th April last, the Secretary for Mines made it clear in this House that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the lines of the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that the penny should be reduced to a halfpenny. That was stated eight months before the introduction of the Bill. The Secretary for Mines, in effect, told the coalowners, "You have been complaining that you cannot pay this penny, and I am giving you sufficient notice that there is no need for you to pay it this year, because sometime or other I shall introduce a Bill that will reduce it to a halfpenny." Why was it necessary to make that announcement so early? Why was the Secretary for Mines so rash when he knew that the Government's time was so taken up with other Measures that it was impossible for him to introduce the Bill before December.
The Secretary for Mines has based one of the reasons for this Bill on the ground that the precarious position of the industry is such that it is impossible for the coalowners to contribute. What is the value of this levy, not so much in money as in service? Most of the schemes are introduced to brighten the lives of the miners and of their wives; they are in the interests of men who, owing to the depressed conditions over which they have no control, have only a drab, dreary life to look forward to. What hope have
the miners of 60 years of age of pensions? What hope have they of any employment in this or any other industry? Seeing that there is no hope of any work in the future for these men, it is the duty of the Secretary for Mines not to cramp or limit the social possibilities which are open to them, but to extend them, and in that way to brighten their lives.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I intend to detain the House for only a few minutes, but as I have followed this Measure through Committee I would like to express my general views upon it. In the first place, the Opposition have omitted to notice that two of the principal arguments they put forward to-day are completely inconsistent. Their first argument was that this is a coalowners' Bill and that the Government are under the influence of the coalowners. Unfortunately for that argument, other hon. Members have stood up claiming to speak on behalf of the miners and affirmed that 85 per cent. of the penny levy is paid out of the miners' wages. They cannot have it both ways, and I think that when they really consider this matter they will see that the Bill has been brought forward by the Government in a genuine and honest desire to relieve the industry of a burden which, in its present state of depression, is too grievous to be borne, but by continuing the levy for a period of 20 years they are enabling the maximum amount of welfare work to be carried out. I, who am not in any way connected with the coal mining industry, and whose only interest, I suppose, is a temptation to pander to the miners of my own constituency, might naturally be expected to take the view that this reduction in the levy was unjustifiable. I approach the question, however, from quite the opposite point of view. What justification is there for Parliament imposing upon the coal mining industry alone of all the industries in the country, a levy upon its output for the benefit of a certain section of the community? The miners are the only community for whose benefit a levy is imposed upon their industry. I have to consider what the justification for that is, and I find it in the fact that coal mining is the most dangerous industry, and that, almost alone among the wage-earners in this country, the real wages of
miners are to-day lower than they were in 1914.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shame.

Mr. MOLSON: It is a shame. It is a lamentable economic fact, and I think we are justified in departing from general principles and continuing this welfare levy for the benefit of the miners. Then one has to consider at what level this impost should continue. We must consider whether, because the welfare levy was imposed in 1920 and reimposed on two subsequent occasions, that really gives the miners a vested right in the levy. The answer clearly is that it does not, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency, when some benefit is conferred upon people for a limited space of time, for them to consider that they acquire some prescriptive right to the continuance of that benefit afterwards.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The ruling class of this country have acted in that way.

Mr. MOLSON: If the ruling class thinks so, their bad example has been followed by those who are rapidly approaching the position of being the ruling class; but in this case, as in many others, the example is a bad one and should not be followed. The point I make is that this levy was imposed for five years, and that no miner can claim that he has any right to a continuance of it for a longer time than that for which it was originally imposed, with the extensions which have been granted from time to time. While reducing the amount of the levy we are extending it for a period of 20 years, so that it will be possible for schemes to be carried out with a due regard to the future, and there will not be the need to maintain the reserves which were built up in the fund when it was temporary. Another justification for the reduction in the amount of the levy has not, I think, been brought out in these Debates, and that is that the administration of the fund during the last 11 years has frequently been inefficient and wasteful.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a very serious charge.

Mr. MOLSON: On pages 63, 64 and 65 of the Departmental Committee's Report will be found observations which are relevant to my contention.
There have been numerous instances of payments being made on their certificates "—
That is the certificate of the District Committee—
that money was required for immediate expenditure when it has not actually been expended for long afterwards, or on different welfare purposes from those for which it was granted, and sometimes not expended at all but eventually returned to the district fund.
There are cases of wasteful expenditure also, but I am specially referring to the fact that if there is a more efficient administration of the fund the smaller sum of money can be made to go further. Finally, a consideration to be taken into account is the existing depression in the coal-mining industry. According to the last quarterly statement issued by the Ministry of Mines, we find that, taking Great Britain as a whole, there was a loss of over 5d. per ton. A great deal has been said about a penny or a halfpenny being a small sum, but when the industry as a whole is running at a loss of over 5d. per ton it would obviously make a considerable difference if that loss were increased to over 6d. So much in defence of a Bill which, on the whole, I regard as fair and reasonable to both parties, and the type of reasonable Measure which I should expect the National Government to bring forward.
But I cannot sit down without expressing my regret that the Government should have been unwilling in Committee or on Report stage to eliminate that most objectionable retrospective feature in it which I criticised on Second Reading and criticised and voted against upstairs, and to which, at the risk of being called, as I was by people of my own party, "narrow and pedantic in my outlook," I object most strongly. I object strongly to the Bill being made to apply to the output of 1932. The Committee reported in December, 1932, and the report was under consideration by the Government until 5th April, 1933, and it would have been possible to avoid the worst part of this objectionable feature had an announcement been made by the Secretary for Mines before 31st March. The levy was payable, in respect of the calendar year 1932, before the 31st of March, and I can see no justification for the Government not having made its announcement before the 31st March. The Minister's memory played him a
trick upstairs, which seldom happens, when he said that it had been necessary for the Government to consider the whole of the report. As a matter of fact, in the announcement made on 5th April the decision of the Government applied only to the amount of the levy.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It was necessary in order to make up our minds to consider the whole report.

Mr. MOLSON: I have a copy of the hon. Member's announcement, but, unfortunately, it is not quite complete. I now have a copy, for which I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Here is the passage in which the Minister said:
The other recommendations of the committee, apart from that relating to the amount of the levy, are still under consideration."—[OFFIOIAL REPORT, 5th April; col. 1755, Vol. 276.]

Mr. E. BROWN: That is quite true.

Mr. MOLSON: I very much regret that the Minister should not have been prepared to reduce the levy as from the present year. That there is difficulty in collecting the welfare levy at the present time seems to be no argument for something which is objectionable to the constitutional precedents of this House. There have been cases of retrospective legislation before, and in some cases they were inevitable. In this case, I see no justification for it whatever. Therefore, although I am entirely in agreement with the general principle of the Bill, I regret because of the particular feature to which I have referred and against which I protested at each of the stages of the Bill, that I shall not be able to vote for the Third Reading.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I can understand why the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), who has just made such a laboured effort, finds it necessary to justify his general support of this Bill; it is because he represents a mining constituency. I am certain that the views which he has expressed will not commend themselves very forcibly to his mining constituents. He has told us that the two main arguments which we have been using against the Bill are mutually destructive. He began by telling the House
that we had said that this was a coal-owners' Bill, and he sought to refute that by calling attention to the fact that we had also said that the miners paid 85 per cent. of the penny and the coalowners 15 per cent. Those arguments are not mutually destructive. The miners pay the 85 per cent. of the penny with a good grace and make no protest, but the owners pay the 15 per cent. and grumble all the time. The arguments are complementary and not mutually destructive. I am certain that that point will not commend itself to the mining constituents of the hon. Member for Doncaster.
The Secretary for Mines has defended this Bill in a very spirited fashion. Sometimes while I have been listening to him I have wondered whether his heart was really in the job. I remember that for a long time he was associated with a party which showed some concern for the social improvement in the conditions of the people. I do not think he will be able to refute the general statement made by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) who said that the Bill will inevitably retard welfare work among miners. If he cannot, I am afraid that the spirited defence of the Bill which he makes from time to time cannot be in keeping with those ideas about social improvement which he once held and which I have heard him voice on more than one occasion. The Secretary for Mines must know as well as we do the environment in which miners have lived and still have to live and he must know of the need for the improvement in those conditions.
He is a member of a bad Government, and because of that he has to do deeds which I am sure outrage his conscience. There is no matter for pride in this Bill being put forward by the National Government. It is a Bill in keeping with the entire policy of the National Government. Anything mean that they can do, they do, and they justify those mean actions on the basis of some committee's or commission's report—any mean report of any kind that they can seize with the greatest avidity. On the basis of those mean reports they bring forward measures which are calculated in every way to injure some section of the working-class.

Mr. MOLSON: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. C. BROWN: Oh, certainly.

Mr. MOLSON: Is it not the case that all those "mean" reports have been issued by committees and commissions set up by the National Government's predecessors who had not the courage to act upon them?

Mr. C. BROWN: That is all the more reason why the National Government should not act upon them. Claiming to be a National Government, they should put the national interests above the interests of any particular party. They do not do that. Instead of putting the national interests above the interests of any party they legislate all the time on behalf of vested interests. Here is an example of legislation on behalf of mine-owners of the country. To put it bluntly, this is a mineowners' Bill; there can be no doubt about that. It is calculated to damage the mining community in all sorts of ways, although it was in the interests of the mining community that the levy was first instituted. I do not wish to keep the House any longer. For my part, I shall not have the slightest hesitation in going into the Lobby against the Bill.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: I will commence my few observations by referring to the question asked by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He wanted to know the difference between differentiating in the mining industry and in any other industry. In 1920 when this Act was passed, the people of this country took into consideration the conditions of the mining areas, which at that time had been described as exceedingly sordid. The mining valleys in his area have been described by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) as so narrow that the river has to turn on its side in order to run down, and people who wear boots which are nines in size have to take them off in order to turn back in them. That is the condition which exists in areas in South Wales which is the greatest coalfield in the world. We have long narrow valleys land long streets of houses, and in that area there are 300 schemes that have not been completed and large numbers of others that have not been started.
If this scheme was justified from its commencement, it is justified in its continuance until it realises its aim—the improvement of the amenities of the mining
areas which contribute so largely to the well-being of this nation and which have suffered such enormous depression. There are not only the risks in the mines to be considered, but also the depressing surroundings in which the miners have to live. They have to live near coal tips, and we have heard it stated to-day that the only way in which they can get the means of out-door recreation is by levelling coal tips. They are not prepared to do that after their work in the mine—

Mr. MOLSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will pardon my interrupting him, since he has been good enough to refer to me. May I ask him if he can explain how it is that the representative of the Miners' Federation, in his dissenting minute, says that, if the pension schemes were not allowed to be included—a point which has already been dealt with during the Report stage—he agreed with the majority that the levy should be reduced to a halfpenny?

Mr. DAVIES: I take it that he was talking about his own area. Whether he was or not, I am talking about my area. I live in a village of which I am exceedingly proud, because I was born there. It has a population of over 12,000, and its amenities are a little better than those of the narrow valleys further up. But these men live away from the collieries, and, as the hon. Member for West Rhondda said, they have no playing fields, no indoor recreation, no tennis courts or bowling greens. We were hoping that his fund, to which our men are compelled to contribute at the pits, would continue in order to maintain the schemes near the pits. We laid down, as a joint welfare committee, that, before we would grant money for the creation of the scheme, we must have security for the continuance of the scheme—for the continuity of that maintenance which was forthcoming from the pennies and twopences deducted from the wages of the men who were working at the collieries. Many of those collieries have now closed down. I had a reply the other day from the Secretary for Mines indicating the number that had been closed since 1926. Now we are put in an exceedingly embarrassing position. If it be argued that this additional halfpenny is going to ruin the mining industry, then I say that the sooner the industry collapses the better. We are
put in an embarrassing position because we have no wherewithal to meet the expenditure involved in the schemes that we were responsible for creating. Since I have been in this House there have been three colliery explosions, and the Secretary for Mines secured from the House crocodile tears and sent a wreath of sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives in those disasters. The House was exceedingly sympathetic. To-night we, who sent them flowers that they could not smell, ask the Government to continue the levy of one penny to enable these people to smell some flowers during their lifetime. I protest with all the vehemence that my soul can command against this pernicious attempt of the Government to reduce the penny to a halfpenny, because it deprives the men in the coalfield in which I live of their only hope of getting some ray of that sunshine of which they have been deprived. They are deprived, not only of the ordinary amenities of life, but even of sunshine and God's fresh air, for 8½ hours every day in a vitiated atmosphere, and they are entitled when they come out to have some improvement in the amenities of which they are now being deprived. I protest as vehemently as I can at the conduct of the Government, and I hope that we shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I have listened to almost the whole of the Debate to-day, and my surprise has been that so little has been said in favour of the Bill. The only arguments have been arguments against it. I want now to support the rejection of the Bill, and I do so gladly. To me it is not only a mean Bill, it is a wicked Bill doing a gross injustice to the miners of this country. When the welfare levy was started in 1920, the mining villages of this country had been suffering from 200 years of neglect. I was born in a Northumberland colliery village, where there were no sanitary arrangements at all, and where there were no welfare halls. One has been proud, as one has gone round the mining villages, to see the welfare halls and the institutes that have been built for young people. In those days a young man in a mining village in Northumberland had only two places that he could go to—either the public house or the chapel. From all the money that was
made in the colliery districts the miners received no benefit; they were left to get along as best they could; and when, in 1920, the Government of the day decided to start a Welfare Fund, it was a real blessing to the young miners of this country. It was done at a time when the conscience of the country was tender, just following the War, and this House raised no objection. I want the House to realise what was the object of starting the Welfare Fund. In the report of the Welfare Fund Committee for 1933, on page 113, Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, is set out. It reads as follows:
There shall be constituted a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research as the Board of Trade, after consultation with any Government Department concerned, may approve.
I want to direct the attention of the House to the provision that the fund is to be applied for purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation and conditions of living of the workers. We have not gone far yet in improving the social well-being and the conditions of the workers in our mining villages. I know it is 13 years since that Act came into force, and during those 13 years there has been a levy of penny per ton, but no one will say that during that period it has been possible even to catch up, let alone wipe out, the 200 years of neglect. Experience will show to-day that that has not been possible, and in our mining villages a huge amount of work still stands to be done. I have heard no argument to justify a reduction of the welfare levy. It cannot be justified with the huge amount of work that there is still to be done in the mining villages. A week ago my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) asked the Secretary for Mines
the number of mines in which pithead baths have been provided; the number without pithead baths; and the estimated cost of providing suitable pithead bath accommodation at all mines in the United Kingdom?
The reply was:
At the end of 1933 159 mines employing about 248,000 wage-earners had been provided with pithead baths. In addition, building had been commenced or grants made for baths at 48 mines employing about
58,000 wage-earners, making a total of 207 mines with 248,000 wage-earners. There remain some 532,000 wage-earners without pithead baths. To provide all these with baths, including canteens, would cost between 7½ and 8 million pounds.
There remain to-day twice as many miners without pithead baths as with them. That points only one lesson to me, that instead of cutting down the levy it ought to be increased and greater activity ought to be shown in the provision of pithead baths. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say they are reducing the levy but extending the period over 20 years. Twenty years is a long time to look forward to. Some of my colleagues say that a lot of miners will be dead before 20 years. But we have this consolation, that the Government also will be dead long before that.

Mr. MAXTON: And damned.

Mr. BATEY: I might have said dead and damned. I agree with the hon. Member. I thought the feeling of the country, as we have learned it recently, would have had some effect upon the Prime Minister, the Minister for Mines, and every Member of the Government, because, as sure as night follows day, when the time comes for the country to express an opinion on the work of the Government one can see what will be the verdict. I am hoping that if ever Labour comes back into power again, as we believe it will, it will not be satisfied with pithead baths being erected over a period of 20 years but will insist not only on a restoration of the levy but upon making up for the years that the levy has been reduced so that baths can be provided long before the end of 20 years.

Mr. DAVID REID: In this calculation of the number of mines where a bath remains to be provided, does the hon. Member include only mines with such a life before them that the erection of baths would be an economic proposition?

Mr. BATEY: That would have been answered if I had read the whole of the Minister's answer. I had better finish it:
The hon. Member will realise, however, that there are a number of cases of small mines, or mines with only a short life ahead, where the construction of pithead baths would not be a reasonable proposition. Apart from these cases I estimate that approximately £7,125,000, the total which will be made available during the
next 19 years under the Bill now before the House, will be sufficient to complete the programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1934; col. 1640, Vol. 286.]
But there are far more things needed than pithead baths. Canteens are praised by the Welfare Committee. Up to the present there have been only 66 erected. Canteens where the miner, before he goes to his work, or when he comes up from the pit, can get coffee or cocoa are absolutely essential. The Welfare Committee Report shows that every one of the 66 that have been erected has been a success. None has been a financial failure. In order that there should be a speeding up in the erection of canteens we urge that the levy ought not to have been reduced. It ought at least to have stopped at a penny.
In addition to pithead baths and canteens, we have an urgent need in mining villages for welfare halls and institutes. One comes across welfare halls and institutes only here and there; we ought to have them in every mining village. On that account this levy should not have been reduced. The Welfare Committee has dealt with many important matters. To take only one or two; they have provided for district nursing, for special medical treatment, appliances and apparatus, and for invalid chairs. All these are essential things, and mean much to our mining villages; yet, instead of being able to provide more of them in future, owing to the reduction in this levy they will be practically cut off. They will have to be stopped. We submit that a Government which takes a step of this kind takes an enormous responsibility to the miners. The position was made clear in an Amendment that was accepted to-night by the Minister of Mines. He accepted an Amendment on the Report stage to make it absolutely clear that aged miners' homes would come within the welfare work. I was glad he accepted that Amendment; it was the only good think that he has done in the whole of the Debate.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I accepted no such Amendment. The provision has been in the Bill from the beginning.

Mr. BATEY: The Amendment that was accepted made it clear. I understood, when the Amendment was moved by the
hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson)—

Mr. BROWN: May I help the hon. Member again? The point about which he is in trouble is this. There was a technical Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), which was only to make quite clear what was already the intention of the Bill, and had been in the Bill from the beginning.

Mr. BATEY: I am glad of that explanation, because we understood in Committee that there was a doubt whether the grants made for the aged miners' homes' movement were within the confines of the Bill. That Amendment to-night was accepted, and made it absolutely clear that for the future the Bill does provide in its welfare work for giving grants for aged miners homes. In the North we have erected more than 2,000 of these homes; that, in my opinion, is one of the grandest works that one can do with this fund, because it means much to an old man or an old woman when there is no rent collector coming to knock at the door and demand rent, and when no fear enters into their hearts that they will be turned out of the house. Now, instead of being able to get more money for the provision of those homes, the reduction of the levy means that we shall have less. Instead of being able to build more homes, we shall only be able to build fewer.
The Government may take what credit they like for a step like that; in my opinion, it is not an action for which anyone can expect credit. Why are the Government doing it? Some of my hon. Friends have said that they are doing it because they want to please the coal-owners. Nobody can say that the coal industry cannot continue to afford another halfpenny a ton. They have been able to afford a penny per ton during the bad years and they can afford it now. If we are to believe what all the Members of the National Government say, that things are getting better, that trade is improving, that even the coal industry is improving, there is less need to-day to reduce this levy from a penny to a halfpenny than ever there was. The industry can afford to continue to pay this penny per ton.
The coalowners to-day pay no local rates, because by the De-rating Act, 1929, they were freed from paying them. In
the county of Durham the amount that the coalowners paid in local rates during 1933 only amounted to a halfpenny per ton. Some hon. Members on the other side keep saying that there is no chance of the coal industry in the depressed areas being revived, and no chance of new industries appearing, because of the high rates. The coal industry is paying a rate of a halfpenny a ton; that should not frighten a new industry from coming up into the distressed areas. Our distressed areas ought to be places to which new industries should rush, after the Derating Act. Now that coalowners have been relieved of so much, it is a shame that the Government should say that they cannot afford to pay this penny per ton. The Minister of Mines said to-night on the Report stage that it was difficult to collect the levy. The total of the levy collected since the Welfare Fund started is £30,549,548, and the small amount not collected over all those years is £110,615. With such a small amount outstanding, there is not much of which to complain in the collection of the levy. I am not sure that the percentage outstanding of the royalty levy is not larger than the amount outstanding of the welfare levy. I notice in the report of the Miners' Welfare Fund that they give an account of the royalties welfare levy from 1926 to 1932 and show that the sum of £1,200,000 has been paid, and that the amount outstanding was £4,822. Therefore, there is just as large a percentage outstanding for the royalty levy as there is for the welfare levy. We know that there are some people who will never pay unless they are forced to pay. There is that class among coalowners just as there is among royalty owners. They will not pay if they can avoid doing so, but it is no argument to say that the difficulty of collecting the levy is one of the reasons why the levy should not be collected.
I am not only objecting to the reduction of the levy from a penny to a halfpenny as being a wicked act on the part of the Government towards the mining community of this country, but I am objecting also to the reduced levy being dated back to 1932. The Secretary for Mines talks about Mr. Shinwell appointing a committee. I was on the Committee upstairs which discussed the 1931 Bill, and the one victory which we thought we
had won there was that we had succeeded in putting into the Bill that the penny per ton levy should continue until 1936. Because we had won that levy we were rather careless about the appointment of the inquiry committee, but it will make some of us, if ever we sit on the other side of the House again, far more wary of appointing committees.

Mr. CAPORN: Was it not an honest committee?

Mr. BATEY: No doubt it was honest, but we shall not be so ready to do it in future, even if it is honest. In the Act of 1931 we thought we had won a victory when we enacted that the penny levy should continue for five years. That Act is still in existence, and it will be the law of the land until this Bill is passed. I submit that the Secretary for Mines has acted illegally in deciding to reduce the levy from the beginning of 1932. He has acted so illegally in smashing the Act of Parliament that I am not sure that, if the Secretary for Mines had his due to-night, instead of sitting on the Treasury Bench he should not be in gaol. There is no question that the levy is being reduced. The Secretary for Mines may say, "I did not do it." He has told the House that he has kept pressing for the penny, but if so, it is strange that now only a halfpenny is to be paid. I put a question to the Secretary of Mines last week, and he replied that the levy collected for 1932 amounted to £903,320, and that the levy collected for 1933 had dropped to £510,353. Whether the Secretary for Mines had told the coalowners or not, or whoever had told them not to pay, the answer proved that last year there was only half the amount of the levy paid that was paid in 1932. We should have had the full amount. We should know who told the coalowners that they had not to pay the levy when the Act of Parliament still stands, and when a penny levy should have been paid. We debated the matter in Committee at the first day's proceedings on Thursday, 1st March, when the Secretary for Mines said:
The situation was that, unfortunately, the report"—
That is, the report of the Inquiry Committee—
did not reach me until the end of January, 1933, and the financial year for the collection of the fund ended on 31st March. I
was, therefore, faced with a severely practical problem, and I ask the Committee to bear that in mind as the sole reason for the course of action that we have taken. It was not because we desire to set up any undesirable precedent, but we have acted because of the severely practical point of view.
That has not justified the reduction of the levy by one-half in 1933. But the Secretary for Mines came back to the question on the same day. He said:
The fact is, that it was unfortunate for us that the report came to us at a period which gave us but a short time to prepare a Bill or ask for the sanction of the House. We did the next best thing. We made up our minds upon the practical point of collection, of date and of rate. I do not think that the Committee can charge us with undue delay, for on the 5th April the announcement was made in the House as to the intentions of the Government.
We will look at that announcement in a moment, but I will finish the quotation.
The Government made it clear that they intended to do three things—to accept the report of the Committee with regard to the halfpenny, to make it effective from the date suggested by the Committee, namely, the output of 1932, and the collection of 1933, and to act accordingly in advance of asking the House to make a decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 1st March, 1934, cols. 6–8.]
I submit that there is nothing there which justifies the action of the Government in reducing the levy back to 1932 when there was an Act of Parliament which said that a penny levy should be paid. I now come to a question which was answered by the Secretary for Mines on 5th April, 1933, as there has been so much misconception as to what really was the answer on that occasion.
Captain SPENCER asked the Secretary for Mines whether any decision has been reached in regard to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the Miners' Welfare Fund?
The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to accept the Committee's recommendation that the amount of the levy should be reduced from one penny per ton to one halfpenny, and its duration extended for a period of 20 years. The necessary Bill will be introduced as soon as the state of Parliamentary business permits. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Committee, recommend that the reduction in the amount of the levy should take effect at once, that is to say, in respect of the levy on the output of 1932. Under the existing law, however, the levy is due and payable on or before the 31st March, and it is clearly necessary that the law shall be complied with.
It was not complying with the law to reduce the levy from a penny to a halfpenny when the law says that until 1936 a penny per ton shall be paid.
Captain SPENCER: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the penny that is now being paid will cover 1932 and 1933?
Mr. BROWN: The actual provision to be made will require careful consideration, and I am unable to commit myself at the present time. The suggestion of the hon. Member is the sort of arrangement that I have in mind."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1933; cols. 1755–56, Vol. 276.]
That was all that was said on the 5th April. The Minister said that he had it in his mind, yet we find that, with the Act of Parliament in existence, the levy was reduced and the amount of money obtained was only half what it was the year before. We are entitled to protest against such action on the part of the Government.
I should like to call attention to Clause 3, Sub-section (2, a, b). Paragraph (a) says:
for the purposes for which the proceeds of the royalties welfare levy are required to be appropriated, such sum as will, together with the proceeds of the said levy for the financial year ending next after the end of that calendar year, amount to three hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds;
That means that the Government are cutting down the welfare levy and the welfare work to make some provision for the erection of pithead baths. Under this Sub-section they provide £373,000 for the erection of pithead baths. In the year 1926, in order that pithead baths might be erected, the Government took the step of putting a levy upon royalty owners. They decided that the royalty owners should pay 1s. in the £ for the erection of pithead baths. The amount of royalty levied for the erection of pithead baths in 1931 was £220,000, in 1932 £204,000, and in 1933 £179,000. What do the Government propose to do in order to ensure that pithead baths shall be erected over a period of 20 years? They say that in addition to the levy on royalty owners there will be certain money taken from the Welfare Fund to make up the £375,000. We do not protest against the £375,000, but we do protest against the money being taken by robbing general welfare work. To take the money from other welfare work means the building of fewer welfare centres, fewer institutes and fewer recreation grounds. We object to
other welfare work toeing neglected in order to provide this money.
The money for the erection of pithead baths has been found since 1926 toy a levy on royalty owners. That levy has been a decreasing amount in the last three years. The Government ought to have increased the levy on the royalty owners instead of robbing the Welfare Fund. The royalty owners would have no room to complain. The coalowners have no complaint to make in regard to local rates, and the royalty owners take heavy sums of money out of the mining districts and do not pay a single farthing in local rates. Recently I put a question to the representative of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are large royalty owners in Durham. We do not like any royalty owners. The answer I received was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from their estates in the county of Durham for the two years from 31st March, 1932, had received from agricultural and other land £75,900, tithe rent charges £1,100, from coal £212,000, lead £100, other mineral and mineral way leaves £54,400, making a total of £345,500. When more money is needed for the erection of pithead baths these are the sort of people who ought to be forced to pay, and not the general welfare work that is so much needed and is so essential to our people. Paragraph (b) says:
for the purpose of promoting research into methods of improving the health and safety of workers in or about coal mines, the sum of twenty thousand pounds;
The amount spent last year was £59,000. In this Sub-section the Government say that £20,000 is to be provided for research into the health and safety of miners. No one will question the wisdom of research into a matter like that. The sum set down in the Bill is £20,000. Listen to what the Inquiry Committee have to say:
The estimates of the Safety in Mines Research Board for 1933–34 contemplated an expenditure of £57,868 for research compared with £57,800 for the previous year, and £3,960 for safety instructional work compared with £3,050.
There is now to be a reduction from £59,000 to £20,000—

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member knows quite well, because it has been explained over and over again, that this £20,000 is a minimum to be provided over 20 years. He knows also that there is £12,400 as the result of an endowment
fund, and in addition to that he knows also there is £1,750 as a grant from the Exchequer. He knows quite well that the Central Welfare Committee, after a division has been made, will have at least £50,000 out of which they will have ample funds to do all that they want.

Mr. BATEY: Will the Minister tell us how much reduction this really does mean?

Mr. BROWN: I do not anticipate that there will be any necessity for reduction at all.

Mr. BATEY: Listen to what the Committee say:
In these circumstances the board decided not to proceed with the contemp lated developments of their safety instructional work, the estimates for which were therefore reduced to £3,171.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member also knows quite well that the Committee thought there should be a reduction after seven years.

Mr. BATEY: It is criminal on the part of any Government to restrict expenditure upon research into the safety and health of miners. The Government all the time have made a set against the miners of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They increased hours, left wages to the mercy of the coalowners, and now they are attacking research into health and safety conditions.

Mr. MOLSON: Will the hon. Member read Sub-section (3)?

Mr. BATEY: Yes, It says:
"Nothing in the foregoing subsection shall affect the power of the Miners' Welfare Committee to apply for the purposes therein mentioned any other sums paid into the said fund."
Where is the money to come from?

Mr. BROWN: I have just told you.

Mr. BATEY: You have given us certain figures, but you know that there will be a substantial reduction for research. Be honest and tell us what the reduction is. Sub-section (3) goes on to say:
but, where there is established for any district a committee or body which appears to the Board of Trade to represent the interests of the owners of, and workers in and about, coal mines in that district, no sums required by the said proviso to be allocated for the benefit of that district shall be applied for those purposes, except with the approval in writing of that committee or body.
I do not think that challenges my argument, which is that the amount of money to be spent on research into safety and health is being substantially reduced. The Government should have taken another course. They get from the Treasury the handsome sum of £1,750 a year for research. The Treasury should pay the whole cost. This Bill is aimed directly at the miners, it will injure the miners, and as it will not better their position in any way we shall oppose as strongly as we can.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: Any one who has listened to this Debate will agree that most speeches have been against the Bill, and, if the Secretary for Mines took into consideration the feelings that have been expressed, he could not very well ask for the Third Reading. There are really one or two points in the Bill which should be altered. I do not think the Minister has taken up quite an honest attitude. Not only have those in opposition to the Government spoken against the Measure but a large number of speeches have been made by supporters of the Government who have not agreed with all that the Bill contains and who have been quite as strong critics of some portions of the Measure as Members of the Opposition. It appears to me that the mineowners have been, doing all the kicking in connection with this matter, and they have kicked the Government so hard that they have found a soft spot; and the Government have capitulated. The levy for the Miners' Welfare Fund is a small item, and the objection is chiefly raised by the coalowners, not by the mining community because they know the great improvement that has taken place in the social life of our people owing to the operations of the fund.
When the Act of 1931 became law, they thought that the levy was assured until 1936. However, we have this new Measure which is cutting down the operations of the fund. The miners believe that welfare work should be extended, and that improvements in social conditions and opportunities in the villages should be further developed. It has given them an opportunity for physical and intellectual development. Under the terms of the Bill, the amount of money is to be cut down by half, and that means that there is to be less than half the welfare
work done in the villages during the next few years. The money which will now be paid will do little more than provide for pithead baths to meet the annual demand. The reduced levy will certainly not relieve the industry to any extent, and there will be little opportunity to carry on the social improvements, the social welfare and the physical development which have been carried on in the past. One wonders how it is thought that these things can be done.
The Departmental Committee in their report from first page to last speak absolutely in terms of a penny per ton levy, but when they come to make a recommendation they recommend a halfpenny levy. Why such a recommendation should be brought forward is to me a mystery, after I have read the report. I may be taunted with the fact that Lancashire has not taken the amount of money due to it. Of course, the Minister and the House know quite well why that has not been done. In Lancashire we have been holding fast to a principle, and to the belief that some of this money ought to go to the aged miners to help them to live during a very difficult period of their lives from 55 to 65 years of age when they are unemployed. However, we have a large amount standing to our credit now, and we shall set our house in order with a view to complying with the law; we shall spend the money on some such object as the Central Committee will agree to.
One speaker who rather amused me was the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He could not understand why welfare work should apply only to the mining community. If he would look around he would know the reason. Welfare work is already being carried on in almost every industry in the country and is not confined to miners. But the mining industry is the only one that is called upon to pay a levy for its upkeep. Employers and owners of industries during recent years have recognised the value of welfare work. They have recognised that it keeps their workers efficient, that the workers are able to do more work than they did under the old hard system of 10 or 15 years ago. Consequently, they have taken up welfare work in their own interest and in the interest of their workpeople, and mutual benefit has resulted.
In the Departmental Committee's Report it is stated that the coalowners say there is no need for any levy at all. We who worked in the mines nearly 50 years ago know what those times meant. We understand the shortcomings of ordinary country life. We understand that in the mining villages there was nothing at all to which to turn, except the public-house or the small chapel or church. There was no kind of recreation. In bygone days, when the coalowners were making very handsome profits, and in the intervening period when they had an opportunity, without crippling or curtailing their income to a large extent, of doing something to improve matters for the miners, they refused absolutely to do it. Really the coalowners ought to be the lest people to cry out now. But we find that when something must be done to keep the workers in physical efficiency the owners are the first people to yell about it being done. It is not because it takes more from them than from the men. It has been mentioned already that the owners are paying lower rates than they formerly paid. To-day their rates are something like one-third of what they were formerly. Having had a reduction in their rates or their rateable value, of two-thirds, they have done very well indeed.
The Minister said that he and the Government and the Departmental Committee had faced the facts. That means that three out of four sides have faced the facts. But there is a fourth party to this bargain, and that is the mining community. Have the miners no right to face the facts? The fact that they face is that they want a continuance of welfare in its fullest sense. They do not want it to be curtailed. They realise the great help and benefit they have secured from it during past years. My point is that of the four parties who must face the facts the greatest and the most important are really being left out of calculation. Surely if the mining community, with its reputation for bravery in the mines, is made up of men who can be relied on in times of crisis to be ready and willing to sacrifice all that they have in defence of other people, they ought to be given an opportunity of stating their case and of being taken into consideration, particularly when they are paying over 75 per cent. of the cost in times of prosperity.
It is stated that the reduced levy will bring in something like £437,000. Something has been said about the money which has been spent in years past. I ask the Minister what have those figures to do with this Bill? The additions to the annual expenditure were produced by the Act already on the Statute Book and not by the Bill that we are now discussing. It seems sometimes to be forgotten that there is an Act on the Statute Book, that it has not yet been abrogated, and that this Bill is not yet the law of the land. Welfare work is only partially done at the moment and it will only be possible to carry it on in a restricted way when the new levy is in operation. Of course the old levy is actually still the law, and I shall have something to say later about the speech of the Minister in April of last year intimating to the coalowners that they would not have to pay the penny a ton. The scaling down of welfare activities ought not to take place until a new Bill has been placed on the Statute Book. What we are doing may suit two out of three of the parties concerned, but it will not suit them all.
According to the answer given to a question by the Minister last week it appears that at the moment pithead baths have been provided for one-third of the mining population. If two-thirds are still unprovided with pithead baths and if we reduce the levy to a halfpenny, it is going to take practically the whole of the 20 years to provide the total number of baths required. It is true that there are certain collieries which cannot be taken into the calculation in this respect, but at the same time, in regard to the collieries which must be taken into calculation, it is not right that people should be asked to wait for 10 years for something which they have a right to expect now. From every point of view, too, the retrospective element in this Bill is open to objection. I think it is lowering the prestige of any Government that they should seek to stop the operation of something which is at present actually the law, and seek to substitute for it an enactment which is only in embryo. A Bill which is only in the course of being passed into law should not be accepted as governing the situation when the present law has not been abrogated.
The Act of 1931 is still the law which should operate in respect of the levy.
Whether the speech of the Minister last April was taken into calculation by the coalowners or not, that does not make such a proceeding right, neither does it give the coalowners the right to get away without paying what they ought to pay. Why should this Bill be anticipated by the Minister and why should the present law be ignored to suit one section of the community? Does it mean that the Government and the coalowners are in collaboration and that the Government are controlling something which they know they ought not to control? I do not want to be too bard on the Minister, but I think that in this case he has succumbed to something to which he ought not to have succumbed. He has ignored those who are the greatest contributors, when the industry is in prosperity, in order to give relief to the employers who cry out when they find it is not in prosperity. The retrospective character of the Bill is definitely and distinctly unreasonable and gives a pointer to future legislation. I should like to read some sentences from the speech of the Minister in Committee in reply to the Amendment for the substitution of the word "thirty-four" for "thirty-two":
There is great force in the contention of the hon. Member that a general constitutional argument with regard to legislation of a retrospective character is raised and one would not, on general grounds, combat that argument but it must he remembered that we are debating this question in the atmosphere of 1934 and not of 1933. The legislation takes this form not because the Government or the Ministry want to outrage any canons of procedure or to introduce any precedent…but because of the severely practical nature of the problem involved…. It was not because we desire to set up any undesirable precedent but we have acted because of the severely practical point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 1st March, 1934; cols. 5–6.]
Whose point of view is so severely practical? Is it the Government's, the coalowner's or the worker's point of view? Is welfare work to be retarded or advanced? Is the fund so very large that we can afford to reduce the amount of the levy? Evidently the Government have made up their mind that the retardation of welfare work and the lowering of its value is to be their ultimate aim. As a Member of this House, I have heard the Minister speak very strongly about retrospective legislation.
I have heard him champion the rights and the freedom of Members of this House. I do not know why the change has taken place. I have always looked upon the hon. Gentleman as one of the great upholders of political freedom and of the rights of Members in this House. I do not know whether he changed his opinions when he crossed the Floor of the House, or whether it is merely a case of expediency, but his action at the moment in connection with this Bill does not lead one to believe that he continues to hold the opinions and the position which he has taken up before. What is retrospective legislation, after all? Cannot it be applied to other matters than to this, and may not this instance of retrospective legislation prove to be a precedent for others which may be very dangerous in the future from the hon. Gentleman's point of view?
This Bill means a limitation of welfare work in the future, with a lower income than for two years past, and that we are halving the money for the work, and it will not mean any return for the employers. One would think that ordinary common sense and confidence demanded a continuance of the whole of the period fixed in 1931. In Committee the Minister said:
I can assure hon. Members that the constitutional point was not in our minds.
I should like to know what he means when he talks of the constitutional point. Further down he made this significant statement:
We made up our minds upon the practical point of collection, of date and of rate.
Then he said:
The Government made it clear that they intended to do three things—to accept the report of the committee with regard to the halfpenny, to make it effective from the date suggested by the committee, namely, the output of 1932, and the collection of 1933, and to act accordingly in advance of asking the House to make a decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 1st March, 1934; col. 8.]
That is a definite statement that the Government had made up their mind to put this into operation without asking the House of Commons whether they agreed or not. I think that is taking an exceptional attitude; it is taking a liberty which ought not to be given to any Government, and if hon. Members of this House were alive to their own
interests, I feel sure that they would support the Labour party in trying to defeat the Bill. We think that more rather than less money is needed in the industry for this welfare work and that higher pressure ought to be put on the royalty owners than has been put up to now. The year 1932 has gone, and the year 1933 has gone, and still the law remains that they must pay their levy of a penny per ton up till 1936. Surely no Government has the right to stand here and say that Parliamentary honesty would condone such a breach of the law of the land.
I want to warn the Government again that this may operate more detrimentally to them and probably more forcibly also in the future. Expediency is not enough to cause the setting aside of the law, and it is something more than expediency for the Government to break the law in this way. There ought not to have been a retrospective period at all, because such enactments have not proved acceptable to Governments in the past. Why the Government, in view of the fact that they have such a huge majority, should find it necessary to resort to this kind of thing, is beyond my comprehension. Whatever the recommendation of the Committee was, the reduction of the levy ought not to have been put into operation until the passing of the Bill through this House.
I look upon this as a deliberate violation of the law. That is the intention of the Government. A Government without honour is in a bad way. A Government which violates the Constitution is a weakly thing. Surely a Government ought to be loyal to its own supporters and to itself, and it ought not to do the kind of work which is done in this Bill. The social welfare work which this levy does ought to be of more paramount importance than the breaking of the law. It has given happiness and health to a large number of people who live in sordid conditions. I believe that even many employers will admit that the men in a large number of mining communities are living in conditions which are much lower than they ought to be, and that in such conditions they cannot maintain the physical strength necessary to carry on their work. The welfare scheme has been welcomed and has done great work
in helping people, but it seems now that half of it at least is going to sink out of existence with ignominy owing to the action of the Government which have the power, if they had the will and the honesty, to carry on the levy at its full rate until the whole of the requirements of the miner's life have been secured.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am sure the House will not want me to go over again the ground I covered during the Report stage. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) always takes so much trouble with his speeches that I am reluctant to say to him that one-third of his speech was built up on an entire misapprehension. He talks about things done illegally. Nothing whatever has been done illegally. The issue about the retrospective nature of the Bill has nothing to do with legality or constitutional procedure, but is a question whether it is desirable or not.

Mr. PARKINSON: Surely if the Act of 1931 is accepted as the law of the land, it must be in operation until it is abrogated or dispensed with by a succeeding law.

Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member will pursue his research into the Committee stage, he will see that that is what is being done. I have quoted in Committee the actual form sent out this year and every other year to the owners. I have done nothing but my statutory duty. I am under the obligation until this Bill becomes the law of the land to callect the penny levy, and I am doing that. As to whether or not the hon. Member would have had me, in view of the Government announcement of April, 1933, when part payment was offered on account, take legal proceedings, is another matter. He is under a complete misapprehension if he thinks anything illegal is being done. The announcement which was made was carefully drafted and was an announcement of Government policy, and until this Bill becomes law I shall continue to do my duty to operate the Act of 1931.

Mr. PARKINSON: As long as you are accepting part payment of the levy you are acting illegally.

Mr. BROWN: The answer to the hon. Member is that the Government have
done nothing of the kind, neither this Government nor any other Government. Hon. Members opposite have constantly made the point that of the £13,000,000 collected we have had only £110,000 of bad debts. That is because each successive Secretary for Mines has handled the thing as a practical problem. It is not as easy to collect this levy as one would imagine from the denunciation of hon. Members opposite. The fact is that a great deal of this money has been paid from year to year from loans or overdrafts, and every Minister of Mines has over and over again had to deal with cases where coalowners have had their last notices and have come asking for further time in which to pay. The issue then becomes, "If the writ is issued, will the Minister get the levy, or will the result be to close down the mine and throw men out of work?" That is what has been happening all along. If the hon. Member objects to that attitude he must attack his own Government and every preceding Government.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: For Heaven's sake tell us about the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: I have listened to all the speeches since a quarter to four this afternoon, apart from an absence of about three minutes, and I have heard some very hard things said. Very hard language has been used, but I listened to it patiently and cheerfully, because I realise that the language was not really addressed to me but to people outside. When the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) used the word "wicked" he did not mean the word "wicked" at all. He knows perfectly well I could have retorted at once that one of the most wicked things to do is to bear false witness against your neighbour.

Mr. BATEY: What does it mean?

Mr. BROWN: When the hon. Member said that we were cutting down the grant for research he was bearing false witness against this Bill. I have pointed out over and over again that apart from the £12,400 which is the interest on the endowment fund of £259,000, which still operates, this is the first time that a specific and definite grant has been made and put into a Statute of the land for the purposes of research into questions of health and safety. It is a sum of £20,000 per annum.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: For how long?

Mr. BROWN: For 20 years.

Mr. GRAHAM: Not at all.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member ought to allow me to make a reply. I think I shall have his own party with me in saying that they might listen during the few minutes which I hope to take to make this thing clear. For the first time £20,000 a year has been set aside to make it quite certain that we can carry on these researches into the causes of difficulty from the point of view of safety and health, so that we may be able to obviate them as the years go by. There is this £20,000, plus the £12,400, which still continues as the interest on the endowment, plus £1,750 as a Treasury grant. The hon. Member is not quite fair in sneering at the £1,750, because he knows that the Treasury is finding £85,000 a year for fuel research in order to help the industry. On top of that, after we have made the two apportionments under this Bill of £20,000 for research for 20 years and £375,000 for pithead baths for 20 years, we still have left a quarter-of-a-million of money at the minimum, £200,000 of which will go to the districts every year and £50,000 to the central fund. That means that out of the £50,000 the Welfare Committee will, as in the past, be able to use its own discretion as to just how much it can add for research to the £34,150 I have mentioned. It is bearing false witness against the Bill—and if I cared to use a stronger word than the hon. Member used—

Mr. BATEY: Use it.

Mr. BROWN: I could say it was a wicked misrepresentation of the Bill. The hon. Member cannot have got as much advantage as I think he might have done from the four days of the Committee stage, in which he himself put many questions and had many answers—

Mr. BATEY: But is not this true, after all you have said, that by the reduction of the levy there will be £400,000 less for welfare purposes?

Mr. BROWN: That is another issue. Now the hon. Member drops his research, and I consider that I have made my point there.

Mr. BATEY: Take research.

Mr. BROWN: We will come to the pithead baths. The hon. Member says that we are robbing the Welfare Fund in order to pay for pithead baths. We are doing exactly the same as Mr. Shinwell did, and what every other Minister has done. What has been the practice since 1926 when the levy was made upon the royalty owners? Ever since the demand began to grow from the districts where it was initiated by miners and mineowners it has grown regularly every year. There is nothing in our minds except to make quite sure that, according to the Statute of the land, there shall never be one penny less in the Baths Fund than £375,000.

Mr. JOHN: Is not the hon. Gentleman increasing that by bringing up the royalty levy to £179,000?

Mr. BROWN: The point is that that is the value of the levy on the output of 1933, which is 207,000,000 tons. The hon. Member is dealing with a point which I am now going to take. That is a minimum, and as the output goes up two things happen to the fund. There will be, first of all, more royalty levy, and as there will be more royalty levy, less will be needed from the Wefare Fund to make up the difference between the royalty levy and the total of £375,000.

Mr. JOHN: I want to get this quite clear. The hon. Gentleman is justifying now the transference of the output levy in order to augment the royalty levy on the ground that it has been constantly done. It is quite true, but we complain not that it has been done, but that the Secretary for Mines is increasing the figure from £150,000 to £179,000, while depleting the fund by halving the output levy.

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that the hon. Member will understand that there was a recommendation by the Inquiry Committee, with which he and his hon. Friends did not agree. That recommendation was that we should no longer have any funds in the districts, and that the funds should be taken from the districts and concentrated at the centre. It is because the whole of the districts were strongly opposed to that that we made this arrangement. We had to do our best in view of the report to carry out the main purposes which the Inquiry Committee said were outstanding. The
first of those was pithead baths, and the second research. Because of the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee for the abolition of the district funds, we made our arrangements. That is why we took the programme laid down by the Inquiry Committee, and that programme, as a matter of fact, is being carried out at the rate of three baths per month. We allocated such a sum as, for the next 20 years, would make the royalty levy up to £375,000. After those allocations have been made we are able to leave a residue of one-fifth to the Central Welfare Fund and four-fifths to the districts. That amounted to £202,700 on the 1933 output in the districts each year, and £50,000 in the Central Welfare Fund, plus certain endowments which we have for research and scholarships.
Nine-tenths of the talk about this Bill is from people who have never applied their minds to finding out what it really does. They have never really worked it out. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) takes out his answers. He carries them about with him in all parts of the country as well as in this House. That is very good indeed. He quotes the answers, but he does not inform the House, as he should, and as a Member who knows all about pithead baths, that not only are there lots of mines which, because of their small size, will not have the baths but there is still in some areas a great deal of resistance among the mining population to the provision of pithead baths.

Mr. PALING: Say "some," not "a great deal."

Mr. BROWN: I say that there is a great deal of resistance yet. This programme has only begun to get fully under way during the last five or six years, and there are many people yet in the mining areas who need to be convinced that pithead baths are really vital from the point of view of welfare. More and more the opinion is growing that this is a principal end of welfare work, and the Bill makes it certain that a long-term programme will be possible. It is indeed, for all those who have to plan these things, a great advantage to have a 20-year period in which they really can plan on a regular scale.
The hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) raised the question of
maintenance, and that is another difficulty. I could not help thinking, when the hon. Member for Spennymoor was talking about miners' institutes in Durham, of the last report of the Central Committee, where it is stated that one institute, which cost a great deal of money, is now being closed down because it cannot be carried on. That is another side of the problem, and another indication that things are not so easy and simple as hon. Members, in their passionate speeches in this House and outside, would lead the electors to believe. We believe this Bill to be a sound solution of a very difficult problem. I accept, as Minister of Mines, the responsibility for

it on behalf of the Government, but I am not going to let Mr. Shinwell and the Labour Government get away without their responsibility. When hon. Members say that the Bill is a mean Bill, that this is taking a mean action, I retort that the meanest of all political actions is to see a difficult problem, look it in the face, and then pass by and let some other man face the problem that you do not care to handle.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read tee Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 58.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[10.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hornby, Frank


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Apsley, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duckworth, George A. V.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bateman, A. L.
Dunglass, Lord
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Elmley, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell


Bilndell, James
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Boulton, W. W.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Bracken, Brendan
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Law, Sir Alfred


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leckie, J. A.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lees-Jones, John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gillett, Sir George Master man
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham]
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Levy, Thomas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Liddall, Walter S.


Buchan, John
Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Liewellin, Major John J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Goff, Sir Park
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Burghley, Lord
Goldie, Noel 3.
Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Butler, Richard Austen
Gower, Sir Robert
Loftus, Pierce C.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Graves, Marjorle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Carver, Major William H.
Greene, William P. C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grimston, R. V.
McKle, John Hamilton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Christie, James Archibald
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Clarke, Frank
Hanbury, Cecil
Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Harbord, Arthur
Magnay, Thomas


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Martin, Thomas B.


Conant, R. J. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Copeland, Ida
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Milne. Charles


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hepworth, Joseph
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitcheson, G. G.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.


Munro, Patrick
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nail, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Summersby, Charles H.


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salt, Edward W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


North, Edward T.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Nunn, William
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thorp, Linton Theodore


O'Connor, Terence James
Scone, Lord
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Palmer, Francis Noel
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Patrick, Colin M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peake, Captain Osbert
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peat, Charles U.
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-in-F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Petherick, M.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, Sydney Richard


Peto. Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Weymouth, Viscount


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Held, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Reld, David D. (County Down)
Spens, William Patrick
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Renter, John R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wise, Alfred H.


Rickards, George William
Stevenson, James
Womersley, Walter James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Stones, James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Storey, Samuel



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strauss, Edward A.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Runge, Norah Cecil
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason. David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan. George
Hamilton. Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
John, William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dickle, John p.
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Dobble, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams. David (Swansea, East)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McKeag, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES BILL.

Order for the Third Reading read.

10.52 p.m.

The Minister of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."
I have an easy task to propose the Third Reading of this Bill. I believe that it is a Bill to which there is no opposition in the House, and which all sections of opinion desire to see passed at the earliest possible opportunity. I
therefore intend, at this stage of the proceedings, only to delay the House with one or two practical observations in connection with the administration of the Bill on which I thought it would be useful to have information. The first practical observation which I think it is useful to make is that we are assured of the co-operation of the local authorities in the administration of the Bill, as evidenced by the very interesting circular which has just been issued jointly by the county councils and the rural district councils associations. In this connection there are two points which it may be useful to emphasise and to which it may be useful to call the attention of
the local authorities. First I would invite those who will be responsible for putting forward schemes under the Bill to remember the utility of putting their schemes forward in the first place, in outline, in order that the water scheme may he considered in outline and its practical bearings gone into by the experts, its national bearing considered, before much money is spent upon it. This may lead to a great acceleration of the work and also in the long run to an escape from expenditure.
Secondly, I would emphasise what is said in that joint circular about the very valuable aid which may be given by the county councils to parishes and to county districts. The county councils will make provision for putting the services of water engineering experts at the disposal of the parishes and the county districts. The Ministry, of course, will always give help from its engineering experts, but the supply of central experts is not inexhaustible and their time is not unlimited. To get this work done, we shall need more expert help, and it is therefore a most practical suggestion that the county councils should themselves assist with that help by putting the services of water engineers at the disposal of the parishes and rural districts.
There is one more practical matter to which I would refer before we allow the Bill to go from us. It is in order to clear up a matter which was referred to in Committee and which has not perhaps been properly cleared up yet, namely, the relation between the present proposed outlay of the water schemes and the question of sewage. It was rightly said by some speakers on the Committee stage that if you bring the water, you must take it away again, and also make preparation in schemes of water supply for accompanying schemes of sewage. The financial assistance available under the Bill is for the purpose of a water supply only, and is not more than adequate for the purpose. But that does not mean that the question of sewage will not be taken into consideration. All that I have to say now is that it will be taken into consideration in this way. The cost of sewage schemes necessitated by new water schemes will be borne in mind when considering the ability of the locality to pay for the new water schemes and, in consequence, the amount of the grant which is to be made. Therefore, although not
directly but indirectly, undoubtedly, the necessary sewage schemes will be taken into account in making the grants. Those are the only further matters as regards the getting of the schemes under way to which it is useful to refer at the present stage of the Bill.
I will commend the Bill to the House for its Third reading with but this single observation. There is, I believe, no investment of public funds which could possibly be more fraught with direct value in return for the outlay to the community as a whole than that rendered possible by the Bill, There is work waiting to be done. The amount which we are voting for it is, according to our estimate, commensurate with the amount of work which can be usefully undertaken, and I am confident that the House will not hesitate to make these grants possible for improving both the purity and the amount of the supply of water available in rural areas for the great benefit both of the health and the amenities of the people.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do this in order to ask the Prime Minister how far he intends to go to-night?

10.59 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I had hoped that the House would have been able to get more work done than has been done to-night, but my right hon. Friend in announcing our intentions earlier in the day promised the House that it was not our intention to sit inordinately late, and the Government will certainly keep to their promise. I therefore propose that we take Orders No. 2 and No. 3, that is, the Rural Water Supplies Bill, Third Reading, and the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill, Committee, and then No. 6, the Overseas Trade Bill, Second Reading, about which, I understand, there is very little contentious matter. We propose to go on and finish those three items and then to adjourn.

Major HILLS: Are we to understand that Order No. 4—North Atlantic Shipping Bill, Committee—will not be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: Nos. 4 and 5—British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, Second Reading—will not be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: So far as we are concerned that will suit us very well, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion cannot be withdrawn if the hon. Member persists in speaking.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Why has he dropped Order No. 4, the North Atlantic Shipping Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is not dropped.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I mean for to-night.

The PRIME MINISTER: There are a number of Amendments down to that Order, and we promised that the House should not be asked to sit inordinately late. The Bill will come on as early as possible.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is a very serious business. Here is a matter that is holding thousands of men from employment, simply because Members of this House do not wish to be detained for an hour or two to-night. The thing is a scandal and the country will not stand it from any side of the House. It cannot be defended. Here we have a means whereby men can be put into work at once. If the Bill is not to be taken tonight it means that it will be put back for another week. It may not seem to be very much to Members of Parliament, but a week's work to members of the working class means a question of life and death. Thousands of men are waiting for this House to decide this Bill, and yet we have been calmly told by the Prime Minister that it cannot be taken to-night because Members of this House have had a Bill before them that it was essential they should discuss, and that it should not be rushed through. Hon. Members are quite prepared to stay tonight and I want to know the reason why we cannot stay. The very idea that because it is going to take the House two or three hours to discuss this matter it is to be put back for another week.
I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip. [HON. MEMBERS: "Appeal to your own party."] My own party will
see me through. I am perfectly satisfied that the Labour party will stand by the arrangement we made to-day. It was arranged that we should take up to Order No. 6. Now the Prime Minister withdraws that, because it means keeping some hon. Members out of their beds. They will be better here. They will be doing some good for their country. This is a serious business for Britain, for the whole of Britain. Britain is watching this House to-night. It does not matter whether we are Labour, Tory or National, we must do our duty. The very idea that this House will calmly decide to walk away to-night because it would mean staying two or three hours later if we took the Bill. No party can afford to do that. It is treating the workers with contempt. I hope that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears. I have appealed to the Prime Minister about this matter on many occasions for nearly two years, I have done all that man could do except sell his honour, and when it is about to be accomplished I am told that it must be put off for another week because it means sitting for an hour or two longer. I am sure that the House is with me in this matter and will stand by me and not desert the men and women I represent not only on Clydebank but throughout Britain. This is a British question, it affects the whole Empire, and I think I have said enough to convince the Government to allow us to get on with the Bill to-night.

11.6 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I cannot allow the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to blame the Government for the decision which has just been announced by the Prime Minister. On a previous occasion the Government was blamed for sticking to a certain arrangement and certain hon. Members below the Gangway kept the House sitting for many hours at a time. The Government announced that they did not intend to keep the House sitting unduly late to-night, and we have, as usual, complied with our word. We do not intend to keep the House sitting unduly late. Take the alternative. Suppose we were to say that we would drive the North Atlantic Shipping Bill through the House to-night there would be a storm of protests, and very rightly, from every corner of the House. I know how
very keen the hon. Member is on this Bill. The Government and the whole House is also keen, but he must apportion the blame where it is due. The fact is that if the first Order had been passed with greater expedition, as I believe it easily could have been, within a reasonable time for a fair discussion of all the points raised, we could easily have had a few hours Debate on the next Order and not have kept the House sitting late. I want to make it clear that the Government accepts no responsibility whatever for the fact that the North Atlantic Shipping Bill has to be postponed and taken on another occasion.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: And may I point out that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burgh (Mr. Kirkwood) did not even vote for the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken once.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: But a personal point has been raised. Nobody voted either for or against the Bill.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.8 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: There is one point I would like to put to the Minister of Health. I have had a communication from the Glamorganshire County Council. I understand that the water rate is to be paid by the consumer, that a special rate is to be payable by the parish, and that there is to be a contribution by the rural district councils. There is also a point in connection with the Local Government Act, 1929, which raises an important issue, upon which I have received a communication from the Glamorganshire County Council. This communication has been received by the Glamorgan Water Board, which covers a very extensive rural area in the county of Glamorgan. The board finds itself in difficulties. It says:
Up to the present the view of the Minister of Health appears to be that if the county council refuses to make an application the possibility of participation in the Government grant will be jeopardised.
That is the essence of the question I desire to raise. During the Autumn Recess I had occasion personally to go to a large number of the rural districts in the Vale of Glamorgan, some of which were in my constituency, and I found that a substantial number of people in those rural districts have no water supply whatever. It would seem that the Glamorgan Water Board were prepared to supply these districts provided the Glamorgan County Council were prepared to make an application for a contribution. It would seem, however, that under this Bill there is no prospect whatever of this joint water board or any water authority obtaining a contribution from the Ministry unless the Glamorganshire or other county council makes an application for a grant. I would like an answer to that point. It concerns not only the county authority of Glamorgan and its relationship to the rural authorities within the county, but most rural authorities throughout the country that come under the jurisdiction of county authorities.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I was guilty of criticising this Bill on Second Reading on the ground that it was utterly inadequate, and did not go very far, if at all, to solve the water problem of this country. The policy represented by this Bill is a policy of patchwork. It seems to deal with the water supply problem on the parish pump system. That course, as I have pointed out, has been condemned for the best part of a century by official investigations. If the Bill were introduced frankly as an emergency Measure, and there was a definite promise of much more adequate and comprehensive action later, I could understand it and accept it with an easy mind. But that does not appear to be the case. This, apparently, is the last word of the Ministry of Health on the subject. £1,000,000 to be distributed under the most stringent conditions to help in the provision of communal pumps and tanks! It does not enforce co-ordination of supply, or even stimulate it. That is why I call it a patchwork policy, a policy perpetuating the folly of "every local authority for itself and the devil of drought take the hindmost." The Bill is not even "a stitch in time saves nine"; it is a stitch instead of nine, and it leaves sorry and
dangerous gaps all over the place. The principle upon which the Ministry of Health has proceeded all along, not only during my right hon. Friend's tenancy but during the tenancy of the Labour party, is the principle embodied in what is known as "passing the buck." They say "It is not our affair; water supply is the affair of the local authority."
If every local authority had a suitable supply placed at its disposal by bountiful nature and had merely to tap it, all would be well, but the reverse is the case. Local authorities who cannot fend for themselves are being told that they must do so. They are being asked to do the impossible. In its relation to the dry rural areas this Bill is like saying to a man who is stranded in a desert spot "Here is a shilling; go and buy yourself a drink." The charity does not meet the circumstances. The drink is not there and it cannot possibly be obtained there for the money. The futility of trying to solve the water difficulty by purely local action is demonstrated by the creation of the regional committees which were begun in 1930 after the 1929 drought. Where these committees have been set up—and they cover only a small part of the country—they have been brought to a standstill by their complete lack of authority. I will take an example from Yorkshire. First let me, even if it is a forlorn hope, try to overcome the incredulity of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter. Yesterday, in answer to a question with regard to a resolution passed by a regional committee, he said quite distinctly that he did not believe my information. With the permission of the House, I will read the resolution that was passed—

An HON. MEMBER: Sing it!

Mr. SPEAKER: The resolution is not in the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: No, the resolution is not in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: Having sat here all the afternoon, if the House objects to my speaking on the vital question of rural
water supplies and decides that I should not be heard on behalf of my constituents, I shall sit down at once. I do not think I ever fail in due courtesy to every Member who speaks, and they ought to extend to me the indulgence which I give to them. I have the honour of representing a constituency of 50,000 electors, and it is only my right that I should be allowed to express their views in this House. With regard to this matter, we have been gathering information for 80 years and we are still doing so. When are we going to take adequate action? The remedy which I have ventured to submit to the House is the creation of a statutory central authority to ascertain and develop water supplies.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in the Bill. The hon. Member has had opportunities on the other stages of the Bill to put forward these suggestions. He must at this stage confine himself to what is now in the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: Perhaps it would be as well in the circumstances if I ceased to say anything further with regard to rural water supplies.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: After your proper rebuke to the hon. Member, I shall try to confine myself to what is in the Bill. Some words fell from the Minister which, I think, ought to be remembered—that the money which is provided in this Bill is not more than is adequate for the purpose. I think that is an admirable definition of the Bill. I am glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that he has now discovered that there is no single investment which will repay us better or be more useful in providing employment than the provision of water supplies, and shat this work is waiting to be done. We shall not divide against the Third Reading of the Bill. A million pounds for the rural areas is better than nothing, but it is not adequate, and the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to the county councils is one which will lead to no response. The hope that was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, and by the Parliamentary Secretary, that we should have a wet March seems to have met with a response from the Almighty so far, but I am not satisfied that even this wet weather that we are having now
will meet the requirements of very many rural authorities. The case which was put on the Second Reading, not merely on this side of the House, but on that, that the Bill ought to have dealt comprehensively with the whole problem of the reorganisation of our water supplies still remains. Everybody will be grateful that there is to be £1,000,000 devoted to helping rural authorities to provide adequate supplies, but, with protests against the inadequacy of the Bill, we are prepared to let it go through.

11.22 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I have noted the protest of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). We have discussed the question of adequacy at considerable length, but if our £1,000,000 grant is better than nothing, considering that it is twice the capital value of the grant he made in 1929, I should say that it is twice as serviceable as the grant he made. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), nothing is laid down in the Bill which compels a contribution from anyone, but the basis of good administration must surely be that everybody who benefits from a particular supply of water must contribute a fair proportion. Every case must be judged on its merits. I do not say there will not be a case where a contribution would be unreasonable, but in the great majority of cases I think the county councils would be only too willing to pay their fair proportion, which would enable the supply to be forthcoming.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Take my division, where we have an enormous rural area. The Glamorgan County Council area is a distressed area, and in order to get a supply to the rural area in that district it will be necessary for the county council to make a contribution. In view of the difficulty in regard to their finances, if they are unable to make their contribution, is it not possible to make some provision that the water board and the rural district council should continue with a scheme in order to provide water for an area that has now not got any water?

11.24 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is really asking me to decide an administrative question on a particular application. I cannot say more than was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We are not tied by any legal conditions in this Bill. Where a contribution can reasonably be made, it will be required. Where no contribution can reasonably be made, then, of course, it will not be required in such a case as that. We must give administrative elasticity to deal with each question on its merits.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has really not met the point of my hon. Friend. It may be that the county council is either unwilling or unable to make a contribution. Should the rural authority be deprived of assistance under the Bill in that case when it is through no fault of its own?

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
On the 6th March the Financial Resolution relating to this Bill was passed, and on that occasion I explained to the House the reason why the Bill was being introduced. Hon. Members, therefore, will not expect me at this late hour to develop the subject at any length, but they would wish perhaps for a word or two in recapitulation of what I said on that occasion. As the House is aware, the Overseas Trade Act empowered the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury, and after consultation with an advisory committee, to give guarantees
in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly manufactured in the United Kingdom. They contain a proviso that the amount of guarantees outstanding at any one time shall not exceed £26,000,000. It is not proposed to alter that limit. As a matter of fact, it has never been approached. The sum required to finance the Department's operations is voted annually by the House, and for the fourth year in succession we have presented an estimate for a token sum, the receipts from premiums and fees being sufficient to cover expenses. When the Financial Resolution was introduced, I referred to the work of the Advisory Committee, which gives voluntary service of great value to the Government in the operation of this scheme. We are content, in the continuance of the scheme, to rely on the assistance of that Committee.
The record of the Department during the period in which it has been in operation is one of which we have no cause to be ashamed. All my predecessors in office have taken a very close interest in the work of the development of the scheme. In particular, I might perhaps mention the work of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) who in 1925 set up the Credit Insurance Committee out of which the present scheme was evolved. That scheme has been entirely successful in its operation. Broadly the facts are that during the first seven years the guarantees given have covered some £47,000,000 worth of exports, and up to the end of December last those guarantees had involved payments of about £350,000, of which nearly £100,000 has been recovered from defaulters. The accounts to 31st March, 1933, which were recently published, show that we have a balance in hand of £1,359,000, being the result of our operations for that period. Outstanding liabilities on guarantees were £8,000,000.
In introducing this Bill, which enables the Department to continue these guarantees and to give further guarantees up to 31st March, 1940, the guarantees to remain in force not longer than 31st March, 1950, we are asking for the power to continue the work of a Department which has been responsible for securing orders for British exporters to the extent
of £47,000,000. A very great number of those orders, quite the majority of them, would not have been secured had it not been possible for exporters to have the services of this Department behind them; and when we consider that these orders were secured for British trade without loss to the taxpayer, in fact, leaving us with £1,300,000 in hand, I think the Department can face criticism without fear. That result has been largely due to the great assistance which we have received during the time we have been in existence from the members of the Advisory Committee.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: What percentage of these credits are to Russia?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That varies from time to time. I could not give the hon. Member that information.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: A rough idea?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It has always been the practice of the Department not to state at any one time the exact amount outstanding in any particular country. It varies from time to time.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: But of the £47,000,000?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I see. I could not give that answer without notice. That would require a calculation. The amount varies from time to time. I could not state without further examination the amount of the credits guaranteed for Russian business.

11.33 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: When the Financial Resolution was before the House I raised one or two points, and I rather hoped that my hon. and gallant Friend would refer to them. In view of the great service which this Department has rendered to the export trade I do not see why the same facilities cannot be granted to our import trade. If an exporter wants to have his goods insured to Warsaw he can get the assistance of this Department, but if he is sending them to York or Scotland or Northern Ireland the assistance of the Department is not available for him. In view of the
great importance of the home trade I cannot see why this suggestion cannot be further considered. There is another point, which may appeal to those who are interested in Empire trade. The goods which exporters send out with the assistance of this scheme must be British goods—virtually British goods. If a trader is bringing goods from, say, Australia, and proposes to export them to the Continent, why should he not have the facilities of this Department in view of our general desire to assist the export trade of the Dominions as well as of this country? The Overseas Trade Department might very well consider that point. It is only, in one sense, a question of book-keeping.
Those who are familiar with this kind of accounts and have studied them will be aware that the premiums that were taken this year amounted to over £300,000, but the liabilities in regard to that sum were something like £4,000,000. Yet the Treasury insist upon that money being transferred to the general account. If, over any one year, a large amount of these liabilities has to be paid exceeding the amount of the premiums received in that year, a special vote of this House would be required to get the money back again, in order to make the payments. I cannot help feeling that, although that may be Treasury finance, a Department of this kind would be much more satisfactory if the money had been invested in ordinary concerns and any future accounts presented to the House and the country in such a form as to show exactly how much were the premiums in hand originally, without being transferred. Those are points which I think must be considered. It is important that the Bill should be continued, but I hope that at some future time the scope of this very useful Department will be enlarged to improve what is already a useful service.

11.37 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We do not offer any opposition to the passage of this Bill on Second Reading. I understand that this scheme was really set up to deal with abnormal risks which could not be carried by the ordinary machinery of trade insurances in the country. It is interesting to note that the taking over of financial responsibility by the State has been so eminently successful.
The State has been dealing with the most difficult portion of that kind of business which is usually dealt with by private enterprise and has been extremely successful. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider now taking over the whole of this kind of business by the State, in view of that success, of which he is so justly proud, as he has just demonstrated to us.
Would he also consider seriously the question of reducing the premiums upon the insurance, in order to give traders a better opportunity in certain foreign markets, and especially in view of the Russian Trade Agreement, in the Russian market? I believe that over £20,000,000 of insurances have been effected in regard to goods exported to Russia. It is very largely from that £20,000,000 that these profits have been accumulated, and there has been no loss. In view of that fact, is it not time that the premium on the Russian trade was dropped so that our exporters may be given a better opportunity of quoting for exports to Russia? The prices which they quote are necessarily enhanced by the amount which they have to pay for the premiums. I believe that the amount is, on the average, up to 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the total value of the goods, and that makes a great deal of difference where the tenders are competitive with countries that have similar arrangements, but where the charges are only on the basis of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider very seriously, in view of the opportunities now open for trade with Russia, whether his Department cannot do something to increase the utility of these facilities in enabling our traders to compete in that market.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: I do not suppose that any Member of the House will be lacking in desire to congratulate the Export Credits Department on the manner in which they have carried out their work in the last few years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the fact that on the whole £47,000,000 worth of trade has been insured against up to 75 per cent. of possible loss. There is one phase of this work to which I should like to refer. It is connected with the point just referred to by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).
Whenever the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has been asked what were the premiums charged in respect of trade with Russia, his answers have always been very ambiguous, and he has never definitely stated what those premiums are. I rather suspect that the reason why he does not care to make them public is lest his Department might perhaps be accused of being usurious in their charges. We are now entering upon a new phase of trade with Russia, and those of us who are connected with export trades realise that there is no part of the world where there are such abundant opportunities for opening up trade in the future as in that country, a great part of which is undeveloped, and which has about 170,000,000 inhabitants. It is very important that we should take every opportunity there in the future, in view of the new Trade Agreement which has been made, and should explore every avenue in order to win as much of that trade as we can. One way in which we can do that is by having given to us good facilities for insuring against the possibility of loss at the lowest possible rates of premium.
It is well known that the premiums charged in respect of trade with Russia are on the average about 10 per cent., as against Germany's charge of about 1½ per cent. It is evident to any business man that, if there is an order in the offing, the Britisher is placed under a considerable handicap in having to pay a premium of 10 per cent., as against the German who pays 1½ per cent. I heard the other day of nearly £1,000,000 worth of orders for machinery for Russia being placed in this country. A premium of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent., or £100,000 on a £1,000,000 order, is sufficient, unless Russia is almost compelled to buy from this country, to place us outside the market and lose us the business. I would urge that in the future the Advisory Committee should see to it that this does not occur, in view of the fact that the Department has made large profits out of this business, particularly in respect of trade with Russia.
There is no doubt that the £1,300,000 which is now standing to the credit of the Department, representing profits made over the first few years after all
administration expenses have been paid, has in the main been made out of the premiums charged on trade with Russia. Having accumulated this very comfortable balance, surely, in order to assist industry more in the future than they have done in the past—although they have done very well—they are now in a position in which they might be able to take a greater risk in the future than they were prepared to take in the past, in order to help industry. I do not suggest that unnecessary or absurd risks should be taken, but at any rate they need not go to the extent of charging such a high premium as 10 per cent., which makes it almost impossible in many cases to get business against another country which is probably as efficient and up to date as we are in industry, namely, Germany, and which, as I have already said, only charges about 1½ per cent. Speaking on behalf of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, to which 40,000 firms are affiliated, there is a strong desire that there should be a considerable reduction in the premium.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I may be the only Member of the House who feels very strongly that this is a thoroughly unsound scheme and that the experience of this credit system has been a great mistake. My hon. Friend who has just spoken represents a constituency that stands to gain very largely under this scheme. It is obvious that a Member who represents a hardly hit industrial constituency, when he sees an opportunity, perhaps, of obtaining a chance of £1,000,000 worth of goods to be manufactured there will be only too pleased to back up any scheme which will bring that about but I believe the whole system is not wise or sound. Let me go back over the history of the schemes. Under the first there was a very heavy loss to the Treasury. Under the second, which has now been wound up, there was a loss of £91,000. That can be found in the trade accounts. Then Russia was brought in under the agreement made by the Labour Government and the scheme has now become solvent. No doubt hon. Members will point to the fact that Russia has not yet defaulted. She may never default. I hope she never will. There is no doubt that, if it had not been for exporting £20,000,000 worth of goods to Russia, the present export credit insurance
fund would be hopelessly insolvent, as the first two schemes were. There is no doubt that it has got out on the Russian shoulders. I believe there is a total of some £50,000,000 which has been covered under export credits, some £20,000,000 representing sales to Russia. The Russian premiums are very high. I had a letter the other day from the director of a machinery fisrm in the Midlands who said his firm was paying 6 per cent. on a guarantee of 60 per cent. of the total, that is to say he was paying to the Government for the guaranteeing of goods sold to Russia no less than 10 per cent. I do not know if the same premium applies to all guarantees of credit for goods sold to Russia. But I think we may take that as a fair average.
I said before that £20,000,000 out of about £50,000,000 are goods sold to Russia. As the premium, being 10 per cent., is approximately double—perhaps a little more than double—the premium on goods sold to other countries, that means that more than half the income of the Export Credits Fund comes from Russia. It is therefore obvious that Russia is carrying the scheme. One of the first principles of insurance, as I have always understood, is to spread your risk, and, as you are here in effect putting half your eggs in one basket, you are undoubtedly undergoing a very grave risk indeed.
There is a further point upon that. Under the recent Trade Agreement with Russia we have agreed that we shall sell to the Russians in certain proportions and that they shall sell to us in certain proportions. In 1935, I think it is, we can buy from Russia one and a half, and we can sell to Russia one. We can import from Russia, for example, £15,000,000 worth of goods and can sell to Russia £10,000,000 worth of goods. Suppose that only £1,000,000 of our exports to Russia were covered by credit insurance, that means that, when you add your premium, the amount of goods that you are selling to Russia under that credit insurance, instead of costing £1,000,000, costs £1,100,000. As you are only allowed to sell to Russia £10,000,000 worth in every year, it simply means that £100,000 worth less of British goods are to be made and sent to Russia. What happens to this £100,000? It is paid to the Export Credits Department in respect of
the credit grant. It can, therefore, only do harm under this Trade Agreement with Russia to have any credits granted to Russia at all.
Besides, it is not necessary, because Russia is selling to us more than she is buying from us; consequently, there should be no objection to forming a clearinghouse through which payments to and from Russia may pass. I noticed that the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, when he spoke the other day on the Trade Agreement, pointed out that there was a great objection to this canalisation of trade, as he called it; that it would cause interference and irritation. He will realise, however, that when the Russians are selling to us they sell through agents, and the agents, instead of paying the Russians direct, can pay the money into a clearing bank; and, vice versa, those of our exporters who sell to Russia can receive payment in the same way. I can see no possible objection to that practice. If, therefore, you have a clearing bank there is no possible necessity for guaranteeing any of the credits which may be granted to Russia. Arising from that, we can sell the full amount of British goods under the ratio system contemplated under the Russian Trade Agreement. There will be no diminution at all on account of payments to the Export Credits Department.
In conclusion, it is obviously unsound in any insurance scheme, or for any insurance company, to put so many of their eggs in one basket. There is no necessity for this scheme in which the State is taking on bigger and worse risks than the ordinary insurance company can possibly contemplate. The Government are undoubtedly taking on risks in which the political element enters very largely. They are doing so because they know that an ordinary trader who wishes to sell to certain countries or to certain clients abroad in large sums will not be able to cover his risk in the City of London. It therefore simply means that the taxpayer may at almost any moment be called upon to find large sums in the event of default. I apologise for detaining the House for so long, but I feel that the whole system contemplated by these schemes is so utterly unsound that at least one voice must be raised in protest.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I am very surprised to hear any criticism of this Bill to-night, and I certainly cannot understand that any industrialists in this country would criticise a Bill which carries on work which has been of such great service to industry in the critical period during which it has been operating. I am sorry that so important a Bill, although a short one, is taken so late in the evening, but I would like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend, who has steered his Department so very wisely and successfully during the last two years, and to say that industrialists all over the country welcome with great pleasure the continuance of this Measure. There are, however, one or two points I would like to raise to-night, and apparently it is the only opportunity we may have of making comments upon them. Seeing that the money is found by traders and not by the Government, one of the faults in the scheme, if there be any fault at all, is that the surplus obtained in any year goes back to the Exchequer instead of being carried to what might be called a suspense account and used for increasing facilities in the following years. If that were done, the high charges to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has referred to-night might be reduced, and increased trade might be done.
I want also to mention the restriction that at present exists in connection with any money that is spent abroad in pursuance of a contract, the major portion of which is covered under the export credits scheme. When a contractor takes a contract abroad, all the materials that come from this country are included in the scheme, but any expenditure, such as the purchase of cement or the provision of unskilled labour in a foreign country, cannot be covered at the present time. It is very difficult, in the case of perhaps a large civil contract, for that additional expenditure to be covered. Apparently the French Government have recently laid before the French Parliament a Bill to provide that up to 25 per cent. of the total of this particular expenditure in a foreign country should be covered by their guarantee. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to take that matter into consideration. I agree that the amount should be limited, and that
it must at all times be definitely laid down that it is expenditure in connection with a main contract of goods being delivered from this country, as naturally we must protect in every way any contracts which would employ to any necessary extent foreign labour.
There are, as far as one can see at the moment, certain restrictions which might, by careful co-operation between the Department and the leading industrialists of this country, be removed. Naturally, a scheme which was commenced in a difficult time, and which has had considerable troubles during this period, might well be improved so as to enable industry to get greater advantage from it if very close co-operation between the industrialists and the Department concerned could be arranged. In this country we do not make the best possible use of the brains in industry, as is the case in some other countries. When trade agreements are being entered into other countries send as their representatives men closely connected with the industries concerned and this is a point which I think the Department should bear in mind. I congratulate the Department on the work it has done and trust that in the next few years we shall see an expansion of its services.

12.1 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE: Let me deal briefly with some of the points raised in this short but interesting Debate. I will deal, first, with the one dissentient voice, the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), who suggested that the scheme was unsound because, apart from the Russian business, it would be insolvent. I can set his mind at rest upon that point. Apart from the Russian business, the scheme is solvent and can stand upon its own feet. It is wrong to suppose that it is only because of the profit made from the Russian business that the scheme is in a solvent position. As to the amount of Russian business that has been assisted I cannot give the exact amount, but I think it is approximately £20,000,000. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir G. Gillett) raised the question of Empire goods and the facilities for domestic trade. That would require wider powers than we have at present and while there is a general demand for an expansion
of the scheme it cannot be considered under this Bill. As regards the point put in relation to the accounts by several hon. Members, they will be aware that it is in accordance with the normal practice for the Government to carry their own risk without insurance and for any surplus to be surrendered to the Exchequer. That is the reason why our surplus has been surrendered to the Exchequer. Hon. Members will not expect me to reply for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on high policy, but, if they desire me to speak from the point of view of the Department as to the suggestion of a reserve fund, I shall be happy to do so. It must be remembered, however, that this scheme is backed by the Treasury, and, according to the normal practice where the Government carry the risk they also take any surplus.
The other point was that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) in relation to premium rates charged on Russian business. During the Debate on the Trade Agreement with Russia I dwelt at length on the attitude of the Advisory Committee towards this question. In the case of exports to Russia, as in the case of exports to other countries, the committee deal with each guarantee on its merits, they do not lay down any general rule. There is no general rate for guarantees on Russian business. The premiums have varied from time to time according to the view taken by the Advisory Committee as to the Russian risk at that time. It must vary obviously, according to the financial position. They have the question under constant review and would not ignore so important a factor as the Trade Agreement. If they decide on any change in the charges made in guaranteeing Russian bills, it will be communicated in the ordinary way of business to exporters who inquire about
the guarantee. It is only by careful handling and the way that business is facilitated that they have been able to show the present results. I hope that the House and traders will continue to have confidence in the operations of the Advisory Committee. I appreciate what was said by the hon. Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. L. Smith) in regard to co-operation with industrialists. We shall do our best to have the closest co-operation possible, because we believe the schemes are advanced by a close understanding. I hope the House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill, which will enable the Department to carry on its useful work.

Mr. L. SMITH: Will the hon. and gallant Member make some comment in regard to the expenditure of money in foreign countries in pursuance of a contract?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That would require rather wider powers than we have in the Bill. I should be glad to look into the question if the hon. Member will discuss it with me.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for to-morrow.—[Major G. Davies.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.